Madras High Court
Vijayalakshmi @ Ramba ... vs V.Ponnusamy on 14 September, 2022
C.S. No. 200 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.S. No. 200 of 2021
Vijayalakshmi @ Ramba Indirakumar ... Plaintiff
Vs.
V.Ponnusamy ... Defendant
Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with
Order VII Rule of Code of Civil Procedure praying to pass a judgment and
decree:-
(a) Directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,10,28,786/- (Rupees
One Crore Ten Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred
Eighty Six) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on
Rs.1,10,28,786/- from the date of plaint till the date of realization;
and
(b) Cost of the suit;
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S. No. 200 of 2021
For Plaintiff : Mr. S.Ramesh
For Defendant : Set exparte
JUDGMENT
The suit had been filed seeking recovery of a sum of
Rs.1,10,28,786/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from
the date of the plaint till the date of realization and for cost of the suit.
2. The defendant, viz., V.Ponnusamy, who was running a hotel,
viz., M/s. V.Ponnusamy Hotel, was a tenant under the plaintiff at new
door no.23, old door no. 22, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 015 measuring
about 4311 square feet.
3. A rental agreement had been entered into between the parties on
01.11.2017. This document had been produced as Ex-P1. The monthly
rent was determined at Rs.2,97,500/- and the defendant had also paid an
advance of Rs.22,20,000/- as security deposit. Since there was a default in
the payment of monthly rent from February 2018, the plaintiff had filed
R.C.O.P. No. 1447 of 2018 before the XI Small Causes Court, Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S. No. 200 of 2021
seeking eviction under the primary ground of wilful default in the
payment of rent. Pending the petition, the plaintiff had also filed an
application under section 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings and Lease
Rent Control Act, 1960 [for short 'the Act'] seeking payment of the arrears
of rent. The certified copy of the original petition in R.C.O.P. No. 1447 of
2018 was marked as Ex-P5 and the certified copy of the petition in M.P.
No. 96 of 2019, which was the petition filed under section 11 (4) of the
Act, was marked as Ex-P7 and an order was passed on 17.09.2019
directing the defendant herein to pay the admitted arrears and that order
was marked as Ex-P8. Since the defendant did not comply with the said
direction R.C.O.P. No. 1447 of 2018 was decreed on 18.10.2019 and
eviction was directed and the said judgment and decree was marked as
Ex-P9. The defendant filed an appeal in R.C.A. No. 48 of 2020 before the
VII Small Causes Court, Chennai. The order of the rent controller was
confirmed by order dated 24.11.2020 which was marked as Ex-P11. The
plaintiff herein then filed E.P. No. 29 of 2020 and had taken possession of
the property and a memo in that regard was filed before the XI Small
Causes Court, Chennai on 14.12.2020 and that memo had been marked as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S. No. 200 of 2021
Ex-P12.
4. However, the defendant had not paid the arrears of rent and that
gave cause for the plaintiff to institute the present suit. The suit summons
had been directed and it had been served on 15.07.2021. The defendant
did not enter appearance and did not file his written statement. Noting the
absence of the defendant and in view of the fact that the written statement
had not been filed, the defendant had been set exparte on 19.07.2022. The
plaintiff was then invited to adduce evidence. The power of attorney of
the plaintiff had adduced evidence and on 17.02.2021, he filed the
statement of accounts, which was marked as as Ex-P2. Apart from the
documents mentioned supra, it was also complained that the defendant
had committed damages to the building and in that regard, the invoice
relating to the expenses involved was marked as Ex-P3. The plaintiff also
issued notice to the defendant and a copy of the same was also marked as
Ex-P4.
5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. S.Ramesh, insisted that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S. No. 200 of 2021
the plaintiff had produced all the necessary documents viz., oral and
documentary evidences to substantiate the same. It is also stated that the
property, which the defendant took on lease, was situated within the
jurisdiction of this Court. But as a matter of caution, since the defendant
was residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner also
obtained leave to sue in application No. 1948 of 2021 and order dated
01.06.2021.
6. In view of the documentary and oral evidence, I hold the
plaintiff had made out a case and accordingly, the suit stands decreed with
costs.
14.09.2022
Maya
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S. No. 200 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Maya
C.S. No. 200 of 2021
Dated :14.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
