Madras High Court
Rajalakshmi Educational Trust vs M/S.Mech Struc Engineers on 19 February, 2021
C.M.P.Nos.2804 & 2805 of 2020 in A.S. SR.Nos.35677 & 35673 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 19.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
C.M.P.Nos.2804 & 2805 of 2020 in
A.S. SR.Nos.35677 & 35673 of 2018
Rajalakshmi Educational Trust
represented by its Trustee
Thangam Meganathan ... Petitioner in both cases
-vs-
M/s.Mech Struc Engineers,
represented by its Managing Partner
K.Selvaraj ... Respondent in both cases
Civil Miscellaneous Petitions filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act to condone the delay of 408 days in filing the above C.M.A. SR.
Nos.35677 and 35673 of 2018.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ramakrishnan Neelakandan
For Respondent : Mr.A.V.Arun
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.Nos.2804 & 2805 of 2020 in A.S. SR.Nos.35677 & 35673 of 2018
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by T.RAJA, J.)
These Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed to condone the
delay of 408 days in filing the appeals against the impugned judgment and
decree dated 20.09.2016 passed by the learned IV Additional Judge, City
Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.Nos.10029 & 10188 of 2010.
2.Mr.Ramakrishnan Neelakandan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the petitioner/M/s.Rajalakshmi Educational
Trust was defendant before the Trial Court in a suit filed by the respondent/
plaintiff for recovery of the rental arrears in respect of the land leased out to
the defendant/petitioner herein. When two suits were filed in O.S.Nos.
10029 and 10188 of 2010 seeking rental arrears in respect of the same land
for different periods, on the basis of the lease deed fixing the rate of lease
payable by the defendant/petitioner herein, the Trial Court, considering the
cases argued by both parties, has decreed both suits directing the defendant/
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.21,76,200/- and Rs.13,75,156/- with interest at
the rate of 12% per annum for the principal amount of Rs.18,60,000/- and
2/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.Nos.2804 & 2805 of 2020 in A.S. SR.Nos.35677 & 35673 of 2018
Rs.12,40,000/- and to pay Rs.58,207/- and Rs.40,188/- respectively towards
costs. As against which although the petitioner/defendant was keeping the
papers ready for filing the appeal, there was a compromise talk initiated
offering 25% of the decretal amount, which was not even agreed upon, as a
result, the delay of 408 days has occurred, which was neither wilful nor
wanton, only due to the bonafide reasons. Therefore, the delay may be
condoned.
3.Mr.A.V.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/
respondent, opposing heavily against the condonation of delay, which is not
supported by any sufficient cause, pleaded that the petitioner is unfair in not
even paying the rental arrears to the landlord. While they are running an
educational institution, they should be a role model in honouring the
commitment to pay the rent on the leasehold lands, which have not been
done. Therefore, the plaintiff/respondent was constrained to knock the doors
of the City Civil Court. Finally, the Trial Court, considering the default
committed by the defendant/petitioner, decreed both suits. Therefore, the
allegation made by the petitioner that they were ready to compromise the
3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.Nos.2804 & 2805 of 2020 in A.S. SR.Nos.35677 & 35673 of 2018
matter, cannot be accepted. When they suffered a decree, they should come
forward to pay the decretal amount, which they have not done. Therefore,
no leniency be shown to them.
4.We also find merits on the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent. When the defendant/petitioner is an
educational institution and taken out the land by executing a lease deed,
agreeing to pay lease amount for usage and occupation of the land
belonging to the plaintiff/respondent, it is not known why the petitioner,
who is an Educational Trust, had committed default. Secondly, when they
suffered a decree for payment of the rental arrears, we do not find any
reason to go for negotiation, as they are bound to make the payment by
obeying the decree and judgment passed by the Trial Court. Therefore, the
argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that only in view of
the initiation taken to settle the matter, the delay is occurred and therefore,
the same may be condoned, is absolutely unfounded. Therefore, finding no
sufficient cause to condone the huge and unexplained delay of 408 days in
filing the above appeals, we are inclined to dismiss the petitions.
4/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.Nos.2804 & 2805 of 2020 in A.S. SR.Nos.35677 & 35673 of 2018
Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed. Consequently, A.S. SR.Nos.35677
and 35673 of 2018 stand rejected.
(T.R.,J.) (G.C.S., J.)
19.02.2021
vga
To
The IV Additional Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
5/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.P.Nos.2804 & 2805 of 2020 in A.S. SR.Nos.35677 & 35673 of 2018
T.RAJA, J.
and
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
vga
C.M.P.Nos.2804 & 2805 of 2020 in
A.S. SR.Nos.35677 & 35673 of 2018
19.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
