Madras High Court
Sri Ranganatha Industries vs M/S.Automotive And Industrial Seals ... on 21 November, 2025
C.S.No.10 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
C.S.No.10 of 2022
and Application No.1146 of 2024
Sri Ranganatha Industries,
Partnership Rep.by its
Managing Partner,
Rajagopalan.
Plaintiff
Vs.
M/s.Automotive and Industrial Seals Private
Limited,
Registered Office at
No.81-A, Trichy Main Road,
Ramalinga Madalayam Upstairs, Gugai,
Salem-636 006
And also at
M/s.Automotive and Industrial Seals Private
Limited,
No.206, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Ambattur,
Chennai-600 098.
Defendant
1/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
C.S.No.10 of 2022
Prayer: Civil Suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 of the High Court Original
Side Rules, read with Order VII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, to pay a
sum of Rs.1,37,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Seven Lakhs only)
together with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of
realization and to pay the cost of the suit.
For Plaintiffs :Mr.A.Ilayaperumal
For Defendants : Mr.Velayutham Pichaiya
ORDER
This Civil Suit has been filed for recovery of money by directing
the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,37,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty
Seven Lakhs only) together with interest at 24% per annum from the date
of plaint till the date of realization and to pay costs.
2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing
Shed No.206, SIDCO Industrial Estate (North Face), Ambattur, Chennai,
and the defendant is a private limited Company and doing business in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
name of M/s.Automotive and Industrial Seals Private Limited in the
plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an
agreement of lease dated 01.10.2016 for the entire property measuring
13,417 sq.ft with building constructed thereon and the defendant has
entered into the said agreement of lease to run industry for manufacturing
of automotive parts, oil seals, water seals etc., As per the said agreement,
a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was fixed as advance and the monthly rent was
fixed at Rs.2,30,000/- from 01.10.2016 to 30.09.2017 and from
01.10.2017 to September 2019, monthly rent of Rs.2,50,000/- was fixed
and for every two years, there has been enhancement of monthly rent of
10% was increased. After entering into the said lease agreement, the
defendant has not paid the advance amount, however, took possession of
the suit schedule property. Further, the defendant failed to make the
monthly rent regularly and there are arrears of rent from the month of
April 2017 to the tune of Rs.36,00,000/- as on 30.04.2018. When the
plaintiff requested the defendant to pay the arrears of rent, the defendant
has not paid the same. However, he continues the tenancy in the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
premises. Thereafter, the plaintiff requested the defendant to vacate the
premises for starting new industry by him during the month of October
2017 and the defendant also requested three months time to vacate. Even
after expiry of the three months, the defendant refused to vacate the
premises and failed to pay the monthly rent from April 2017. Thereafter,
the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 10.05.2018 calling upon the
defendant to vacate the property within 15 days and thereafter, the
defendant issued a reply notice dated 17.05.2018 with false allegations
and again, the plaintiff issued a rejoinder on 31.05.2017 and after that, on
20.06.2018, the plaintiff approached the defendant and requested to
vacate the premises and to pay the arrears of rent but the defendant failed
to vacate the premises. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the petition before the
District Munsif cum Rent Control Authority, Ambattur, in R.C.O.P.No.45
of 2018 for eviction. After filing of the said petition, the defendant has
paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on various dates. After filing of the
application under Section 11(4) of the Act, in the rent control
proceedings, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- to the plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
through various D.D’s on various dates and thereafter, the said
R.C.O.P.No.45 of 2018 was allowed and against the said order, an appeal
was preferred before the learned Sub Judge cum Rent Control Appellate
Authority, Poonamallee in R.C.A.No.3 of 2021 and during the pendency
of the appeal, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. Thereafter, the
defendant filed C.R.P.No.1492 of 2021 and the same was also dismissed.
The eviction order passed by the learned District Munsif cum Rent
Controller, Ambattur has not been challenged at all til today and the same
has become final. The Rent Controller Authority and the Appellate
Authority have categorically held that the defendant is a willful defaulter
and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the monthly rents from
the month of April 2017 to November 2021 which comes around
Rs.1,26,50,000/- and during the pendency of the proceedings, the
defendant paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and thereafter, paid a sum of
Rs.17,00,000/-. The defendant is doing business in the rental premises
and earning several crores of ruppees for every month. However, the
defendant failed to pay the rental amount, even after the eviction order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
passed by the Rent Controller Authority on 26.08.2021. The plaintiff
requested the defendant on several occasions to pay the arrears of
monthly rent but the defendant failed to pay the amount and therefore, the
plaintiff filed this suit. The defendant is liable to pay the rent from April
2017 to 15.03.2023 and the total due amount would come around
Rs.1,37,00,000/-.
3. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the
defendant are as follows:-
The subject property is situated in Ambattur which is lying within
the jurisdiction of Tiruvallur and the defendant’s registered office is at
Salem and the factory premise is at Ambattur and this Court has no
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the cause of action arose
within the jurisdiction of Thiruvallur District Court and therefore, this
Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The allegation that the
property measuring 13,417 sq.ft with building measuring 9745 sq.ft is not
correct. The plaintiff’s Managing Partner, Raja Gopalan had played fraud
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
upon this defendant’s then Managing Director, Jeba Gurunadhan, in
getting the aforesaid lease agreement dated 01.10.2016. Though it has
been mentioned that the extent of building is measuring to an extent of
9745 sq.ft., actually only an extent of 4000 sq.ft of building is available
on field. The quantum of rent was agreed for the building measuring
9475 sq.ft only. When the extent of building available on field is less than
9475 sq.ft., the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the same quantum of rent.
The rental advance was fixed at Rs.25,00,000/- and the defendant has also
paid the same. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs.2,30,000/- from
01.10.2016 to 30.09.2017 and the said amount was inclusive of service
tax, which is presently GST. However, the said amount was fixed for the
property with building measuring 9747 sq.ft and for the property with
building measuring 4000 sq.ft. The plaintiff is bound to reduce the
monthly rent proportionately when the building is not even half the extent
mentioned in the lease agreement. The allegation that the defendant had
taken the possession of the demised premises without payment of
advance is denied and the plaintiff himself made an endorsement in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
lease agreement acknowledging the receipt of aforesaid sum of
Rs.2,50,000/-. The plaintiff has deliberately suppressed the fact that the
plaintiff has not registered himself as service provider under Service Tax
Act and subsequently under GST Act. The plaintiff’s demand is illegal
since the extent of building available on field is less than half of what is
mentioned in the lease agreement but rent is being insisted without any
statutory deductions both under Income Tax Act or under Service
Law/GST and the defendant is bound to deduct 10% of the monthly rent
towards TDS Charges and 18% towards GST Charges. The plaintiff
issued a notice dated 10.05.2018 and the same was suitably replied on
17.05.2018 and the plaintiff once again issued a rejoinder dated
31.05.2018. It is admitted that the plaintiff has filed R.C.O.P.No.45 of
2018 and the Rent Controller also allowed the application vide order
dated 29.01.2021 by directing the defendant to pay a sum of
Rs.31,80,000/- towards arrears of rent. The defendant paid a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- to the plaintiff on 09.04.2021 and the defendant is entitled
to deduct GST and the plaintiff is not entitled for enhancement of rent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
The calculation given by the plaintiff is erroneous and the defendant is
not liable to pay the suit amount. There is no cause of action for the suit
and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. Based on the above said pleadings, after hearing both sides and
perusing the pleadings and records, this Court framed the following
issues on 13.04.2022:-
“i. Whether the defendant is liable to pay a sum of
Rs.1,26,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty Six Lakhs and Fifty
Thousand only) together with interest at the rate of 24% per
annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization as sought
for in the plaint?
ii. Whether the defendant is bound to deduct 10% of the
monthly rent towards the TDS Charges when the annual rent in
excess of Rs.2,40,000/-?
iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get an enhanced rent
on the basis of unregistered lease agreement?
iv. Whether the plaintiff has any cause of action against the
defendant?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the costs of the suit?
vi. To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?”
5. After framing issues, the plaint was amended as the claim was
enhanced to Rs.1,37,00,000/-, therefore the first issue is recast as follows:
(i) Whether the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,37,00,000/-
(Rupees One Crore Thirty Seven Lakhs only) together with interest at the
rate of 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization
as sought for in the plaint?
6. For effective disposal, this Court frames the following additional
issue:
Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
7. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that
the plaintiff is the owner of the factory building bearing Shed No.206,
SIDCO Industrial Estate (North Face), Ambattur, Chennai and the same
was purchased from Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development
Corporation Limited through the Sale Deed dated 29.08.1990. While so,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
the defendant approached the plaintiff for running industry to
manufacture of automotive parts, oil seals and water seals etc., An
agreement of lease was executed between the parties for the property
measuring 13,417 sq.ft with building constructed thereon and measuring
9745 sq.ft on the thereabouts in SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur,
Chennai. As per the agreement, advance was fixed at Rs.25,00,000/- and
the monthly rent of Rs.2,30,000/- was fixed from 01.10.2016 to
30.09.2017 and from 01.10.2017 to September, 2019, monthly rent of
Rs.2,50,000/- was fixed and thereafter, there will be enhancement of
monthly rent of 10% for every two years. Though there is a clause for
payment of advance amount of Rs.25,00,000/-, the defendant has not paid
the said amount and he has also failed to pay the monthly rents properly
and there are arrears of monthly rent of Rs.36,00,000/- from April 2017
as on 30.04.2018. Inspite of repeated requests and demand made by the
plaintiff, the defendant neither repaid the amount nor vacated the
premises. The plaintiff also requested the defendant to vacate the
premises and the plaintiff himself wanted to run the Industry in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
aforesaid property, but the defendant failed to vacate the premises and
thereby, the plaintiff filed the eviction petition before the Rent Control
Authority and the same was also allowed. During the pendency of the
eviction proceedings, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. As on
the date of the plaint, there are arrears of monthly rent from April 2017
till November 2021. In the meantime, after filing of Section 11(4)
application, the defendant paid a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- to the plaintiff
through various Demand Drafts on various dates. During the pendency of
the appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the defendant
paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and thereafter, has not paid any amount.
The plaintiff is entitled to recover the arrears from April 2017 to
15.03.2023 and the total amount would come around Rs.1,37,00,000/-
after deducing a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- Therefore, the defendant is liable
to pay the suit amount. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the
plaintiff examined P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P41. On the side of the
defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 was marked. The defendant
admitted the lease agreement and the quantum of rent and therefore, they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
have to pay the suit amount. Therefore, he prayed for decreeing the suit.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant would submit
that as per the terms of the lease agreement, the tenancy was to
commence from 01.10.2016 to 30.09.2021. It was agreed that the
defendant had paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards security deposit and
Rs.15,00,000/- towards additional interest free security deposit to be
refunded at the time of termination of lease. For the period commencing
from 01.10.2016 to 30.09.2017, the lessee shall pay every sum of
Rs.2,30,000/- inclusive of service tax and on completion of 12 months
(i.e.,) from 01.10.2017 to September 2019, an increased rent of
Rs.2,50,000/- inclusive of service tax will be paid to the lessor. Then it
will be renewable with increase of 10% for every two years. As per
clauses 12 and 14 of the agreement, the lessees are entitled to deduct
income tax or other taxes even during the subsistence of the lease and the
lessees are evicted for any reason whatsoever, the lessor shall indemnify
the lessees for any pecuniary loss, damages and expenses incurred by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
lessees together with interest thereon at 15% per annum from the date of
such eviction. As per clause 20 of the agreement, if any dispute arises in
regard to the construction of any terms of this agreement, the same shall
be decided by the arbitration. Therefore, based on the said terms of the
agreement, the defendant occupied the leased property in October 2016,
but, the actual utilized space was 9745 sq.ft instead of 13,417 sq.ft. A
promise made by the plaintiff that he would put up the building in the
remaining area did not fructify till the eviction of the defendant from the
premises. Therefore, the doctrine of suspension of rent is invoked for
rejection of that portion of rent which was not utilized by the defendant.
The production unit in the premises was interrupted due to various
reasons such as spread of COVID-19, disconnection of power supply etc.,
which had resulted in heavy loss to the defendant during the relevant
years. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to invoke doctrine of
suspension of rent. The eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller
by order dated 26.08.2021. In pursuance of the said order, the defendant
was evicted from said premises on 15.03.2023. In the suit amount, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
applicable tax and other taxes have not been deducted and therefore, the
plaintiff is not entitled to the suit amount and the suit is liable to be
dismissed.
9. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available
on record.
Issue No.IV and additional issue:
10. Since the additional issue and issue No.IV are in respect of
territorial jurisdiction and cause of action, both the issues were taken as
first. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money against the
defendant. According to the plaintiff, the defendant approached the
plaintiff for leasing out the property. Both of them agreed and the
agreement of lease was executed between the parties and the execution of
the lease agreement was not denied. Thereafter, according to the plaintiff,
the defendant has not paid the rent amount properly as agreed in the lease
agreement and thereby, the plaintiff filed the suit. As per the plaint, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
cause of action arouse on various dates and there are pleadings in respect
of cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Court. The defendant in
the written statement raised a plea that there is no cause of action for the
suit, since the premises was situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court
and the defendant’s office is situated at Salem and therefore, there is no
cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court and this Court
has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is an admitted fact
that the property is situated outside the jurisdiction of the Court, but
however, the cause of action according to the plaintiff arouse within the
jurisdiction of this Court where the lease agreement which was marked as
Ex.P1 was entered into on 01.10.2016 at Chennai and the plaintiff also
filed an application before this Court to grant leave to file the suit and this
Court also granted leave and the same has not been challenged by the
defendant. Therefore, the cause of action arouse at Chennai and this Court
has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, issue No.IV and
additional issue is answered accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
11. Issue No.2:
Whether the defendant is bound to deduct 10% of the monthly rent
towards TDS Charges when the annual rent in excess of Rs.2,40,000?
The defendant raised a plea that as per the agreement, the monthly
rent was fixed at Rs.2,30,000/- from 01.10.2016 to 30.09.2017 and from
01.10.2017 to September 2019, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- inclusive of
service tax was fixed and therefore, the defendant is bound to deduct
10% of the amount towards TDS charges, when the amount exceeds
Rs.2.4 Lakhs per year. This Court also perused Ex.P1/Lease Agreement
where in Clause 3 it has been stated as follows:-
“3. It is hereby agreed that the Lessee shall pay the rent as
follows:-
a. For the period commencing from 01.10.2016 to
30.09.2017, the lessee shall pay, every sum of Rs.2,30,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Thousand Only) inclusive of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
service Tax.
b. On completion of 12 months, that is from 1st October
2017 on September 2019, an increased rent of Rs.2.5 Lakhs
(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) inclusive of Service
Tax will be piad to the lessor.
c. Then it will be renewable with increase of 10% for
every two years.”
Therefore, a bare reading of the said lease agreement makes it clear
that the defendant has to pay a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- from 01.10.2016 to
30.09.2017 and from 01.10.2017 to September 2019, a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/- inclusive of service tax. If any amount is due payable by
the plaintiff towards the Government for taxes, it is for him to pay the
amount and the defendant cannot deduct the amount and it is between the
Government and the plaintiff and therefore, the defendant is not bound to
deduct 10% towards TDS Charges. As per clause 12 of the agreement, the
lessees are entitled to deduct income tax or other taxes which by law they
are bound to deduct out of rent set out above , however, the defendant has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
not filed any calculation memo about the deduction of tax and therefore,
if there is any arrears of tax, it is for the plaintiff to face the consequences
from the concerned Government Authorities. Accordingly, the issue No.2
is answered.
12.Issue No.3:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get an enhanced rent on the basis
of unregistered lease agreement?
According to the plaintiff, as per the lease agreement, from
01.10.2016 to 30.09.2017, the rent was fixed at Rs.2,30,000/- and from
01.10.2017 to September 2019, the rent was fixed at Rs.2,50,000/- and
thereafter, the agreement will be renewable with increase of 10% for
every two years, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 10% of increase
from October 2019 till the date of handing over the possession. As per
records, it is seen that the premises was handed over to the plaintiff on
17.03.2022. In this context, it is relevant to refer clause 3 of the
agreement. As per clause 3(a) of the agreement, an amount of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
Rs.2,30,000/- was fixed from 01.10.2016 to 30.09.2017 and as per clause
3(b), from 01.10.2017 to September 2019, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was
fixed and as per clause 3(c), it will be renewable with increase of 10% for
every two years. Therefore, on renewal, increase of 10% has to be paid
by the defendant, but there is no renewal of the agreement. As per
clause 1 of the agreement, time was fixed for five years which was
commenced from 01.10.2016 to 30.09.2021. There was no renewal and
the rent control proceedings are pending before the concerned
Authorities. Though the time was fixed for five years, as per clause 3(c)
of the agreement, 10% increase will be made only on renewal and
therefore, there is no records to show that the lease agreement was
renewed. In the absence of any renewal, the plaintiff is not entitled to
increase of 10% for every two years in the rent on the basis of that
agreement.
13. Issue No.1
Whether the sole defendant is liable to pay a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
Rs.1,37,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Seven Lakhs only) together
with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the
date of realization as sought for in the plaint?
(i) The plaintiff has filed the suit as against the defendant for payment of
Rs.1,26,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% interest per annum,
subsequently the amount he prayed for payment of Rs.1,37,00,000/-. As
per the calculation memo filed by the plaintiff/Ex.P35, on 01.09.2016, a
sum of Rs.19,00,000/- was paid as advance amount and from 01.10.2016
to 30.09.2017, the rent payable is Rs.25,30,000/-, in which, the rent paid
is Rs.13,80,000/- and due is Rs.11,50,000/- and from 01.10.2017 to
30.09.2019, the due rent is Rs.60,00,000/- (Rs.2,50,000 X 24) and from
01.10.2019 to 30.07.2021, the due rent (2,75,000 X 22) and enhanced
rent of 10% is Rs.60,50,000/- and the rents paid during the pendency of
11(4) petition are Rs.3,00,000/- on 19.07.2019, Rs.1,50,000/- on
30.09.2019, Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.10.2019, Rs.1,50,000/- on 09.12.2020,
Rs.5,00,000/- on 08.04.2021 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 09.04.2021. Therefore,
the defendant paid a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- in total and the remaining
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
amount would come to Rs.1,32,00,000/-. The arrears amount as on date
04.08.2021 is Rs.1,15,00,000/- and the advance amount payable is
Rs.19,00,000/- and after deducting advance amount, the arrears amount
would come around Rs.96,00,000/-.
(ii) As per clause 2 of the lease agreement/Ex.P.1, the lessees had
paid the lessors a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards security deposit and also
the lessees have confirmed an additional interest free security deposit of
Rs.15,00,000/- before 31.01.2017. With this, a total amount of
Rs.25,00,000/- will be refunded to the lessee at the time of termination of
lease. In the plaint, the plaintiff has not stated about the alleged advance
payment, however, the plaintiff admitted that as per the agreement, the
defendant has to pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. The plaintiff in the plaint
stated that after entering into the lease agreement, the defendant had not
paid the advance (i.e.,) security deposit and the defendant had taken the
possession of the property, whereas, in the calculation memo, Ex.P35, the
plaintiff admitted the receipt of Rs.19,00,000/- towards advance amount.
Therefore, the plaintiff has to prove that he has not received the entire
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
advance amount of Rs.25,00,000/- as mentioned in the agreement, but
there is no evidence to prove the said contract and the conduct of the
plaintiff by pleadings that no advance amount was received would show
that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts. As per the agreement, the
total advance amount is Rs.25,00,000/- and the defendant has pleaded
that he paid a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as security deposit and additional
interest free security deposit and the plaintiff through Ex.P.35 admitted
advance money of Rs.19,00,000/- therefore, the plaintiff ought to have
deducted a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- towards advance money.
(iii) Further, this Court has already in previous issue decided that
the plaintiff is not entitled to enhance the rent of 10% and thereby, the
plaintiff from 01.10.2019 till the date of 17.03.2022 (i.e.,) date of handing
over the key is entitled to the monthly rent of Rs.2,50,000/-. The plaintiff
in the plaint admitted that there are arrears of rents from April 2017 to
30.09.2017 (i.e.,) six months. The plaintiff is entitled to Rs.2,30,000/- per
month and for six months, the amount would come around Rs.13,80,000/-
(Rs.2,30,000/- X 6). From 01.10.2017 to September 2019, the plaintiff is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
entitled to Rs.2,50,000/- per month and for 24 months, the amount would
come around Rs.60,00,000/- and from 01.10.2019 to 17.03.2022 for 29
months, the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.2,50,000/- per month and the
amount would come around Rs.72,50,000/- and in total, he is entitled to
pay a sum of Rs.1,46,30,000/-. The plaintiff admitted the receipt of
money during the pendency of the proceeding to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-
, Rs.17,00,000/- and another Rs.10,00,000/- and the aforesaid
Rs.30,00,000/- has to be deducted form the total amount of
Rs.14,630,000/- and the amount due would come around Rs.11,630,000/-.
Apart from that, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- paid by the defendant as
advance amount has also to be deducted and thereby, the total amount due
is Rs.91,30,000/- and the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.91,30,000/- (Rupees
Ninety One Lakhs Thirty Thousand only). Though the plaintiff claimed a
sum of Rs.1,37,00,000/- as due amount, there is no proper calculation
filed by him and therefore, this Court calculated the amount based on the
available records as indicated above. The plaintiff also prayed for interest
at the rate of 24% per annum and there is no interest clause available in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
the agreement. However, there is a dispute between the parties in respect
of space available in the land. As per the agreement, the rent includes
service tax but the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that
he has paid the service tax to the concerned Department. The defendant
also pleaded that the space mentioned in the agreement is not available
and therefore, this Court took into account of the fact that the period is
covered under COVID-19 and the plaintiff is entitled to 6% interest from
the date of plaint till date of realisation of the amount. Thus the issue
No.(i) is answered.
(iv) According to the defendant, they are entitled to deduct the rent
amount due to non-space available as per the agreement and is entitled to
reduce the rent amount as per the doctrine of suspension of rent. The
learned counsel appearing for the defendant relied upon the judgments in
Surendra Nath Bibra vs. Stephen Court Limited reported in AIR 1966
Supreme Court 1361, P.K.Koy vs. Sm.Bimala Mukherjee reported in
1976 SCC Online Cal 149, Nilkantha Pati vs. Kshitish Chandra Satpati
and other reported in AIR 1951 CALCUTTA 338, SM.Katyayani Debi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
vs. Udoy Kumar Das reported in AIR 1925 PRIVY COUNCIL 97,
Hakim Sardar Bahadur vs. Tej Parkash Sing reported in AIR 1962
PUNJAB 385. By relying upon those judgments, he would submit that
by applying the doctrine of suspension of rent, he requested to suspend
the rent for the period of COVID-19, but the defendant in the written
statement has not pleaded about inability due to COVID-19 and from the
aforesaid judgments, it is clear that the doctrine of suspension of rent
should not be regarded as a rule of justice, equity and good conscience in
India in all circumstances. Such doctrine cannot be justified as a
dependable rule to be adhered to notwithstanding hard cases. It will
depend on the circumstances of each case whether a tenant would be
entitled to suspend payment of the rent or whether he should be held
liable to pay proportionate part of the rent. In the case on hand, there are
no pleadings in respect of inability due to COVID-19 or any other reason
and therefore, those judgments are no way helpful to decide the case in
favour of the defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
14. Issue No.5:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the costs of the suit?
Normally, if the plaintiff succeeds in his suit, the costs will follow.
In this case, the plaintiff has suppressed the advance amount received by
him and also failed to pay the tax to the concerned Government
Authorities and this Court also decide that the plaintiff is not entitled for
money as claimed by him, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the
proportionate cost.
15.Issue No.6:
To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?
This Court in previous issue decided that the plaintiff is only
entitled to Rs.91,30,000/- (Rupees Ninety One Lakhs Thirty Thousand
only). with interest at the rate of 6% interest per annum from the date of
plaint till the realisation of the amount. Apart from that amount, the
plaintiff is not entitled to any other reliefs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
16. In the result, the civil suit is partly decreed and the defendant is
directed to pay a sum of Rs.91,30,000/- (Rupees Ninety One Lakhs Thirty
Thousand only) to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6% per annum
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. The plaintiff entitled to proportionate cost. Connected
application is closed.
21-11-2025
ssb
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
NCC:Yes/No
List of Witness:
Plaintiffs' side witness:-
R.Rajagopalan (P.W.1)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
Defendants' side witness:-
M.Ramasubramanian (D.W.1)
List of Documents:
Sl.No Date Particulars of the Document Remarks
Ex.P1 01.10.2016 Agreement of lease Xerox
Copy
Ex.P2 10.05.2018 Legal notice issued by the plaintiff Hand
copy
Ex.P3 17.05.2018 Reply notice issued by the defendant Xerox
copy
Ex.P4 31.05.2018 Rejoinder issued by the plaintiff Hand
copy
Ex.P5 06.07.2018 Petition in R.C.O.P.No.45 of 2018 Certified
copy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
Ex.P6 August, 2018Affidavit and Petition in M.P.No.121 ofHand
2018 in R.C.O.P.No.45 of 2018 copy
Ex.P7 05.02.2019 Counter affidavit in M.P.No.121 of 2018Certified
in R.C.O.P.No.45 of 2018 filed by thecopy
defendant
Ex.P8 28.03.2019 Additional Counter affidavit inCertified
M.P.No.121 of 2018 in R.C.O.P.No.45copy
of 2018 filed by the defendant
Ex.P9 02.07.2019 Order in C.R.P.No.2134 of 2019 Xerox
Copy
Ex.P10 Memo No(s).2 filed by the defendant Hand
copy
Ex.P11 14.08.2019 Affidavit and Petition in M.P.No.75 ofHand
2019 in R.C.O.P.No.45 of 2018 filed bycopy
the Defendant
Ex.P12 30.08.2019 Counter affidavit in M.P.No.75 of 2019Hand
in R.C.O.P.No.45 of 2018 filed by thecopy
Plaintiff
Ex.P13 24.01.2020 Fair Order in M.P.No.75 of 2019 inCertified
R.C.O.P.No.45 of 2018 copy
Ex.P14 24.01.2020 Decreetal Order in M.P.No.75 of 2019 inCertified
R.C.O.P.No.45 of 2018 Copy
Ex.P15 17.02.2020 Order in Tr.C.M.P.No.64 of 2020 (WebXerox
Copy) Copy
Ex.P16 13.10.2020 Affidavit and Petition in M.P.No.15 ofHand
2020 in R.C.O.P.No.45 of 2018 filed byCopy
the Defendant
Ex.P17 14.10.2020 Counter affjdavit in M.P.No.15 of 2020Hand
in R.C.O.P.No.45 of 2018 filed by thecopy
plaintiff
Ex.P18 02.11.2020 Affidavit and Petition in M.P.No.29 ofHand
2020 in M.P.No.15 of 2020 inCopy
R.C.O.P.No.45 of 2018 filed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
Defendant
Ex.P19 10.11.2020 Counter Affidavit in M.P.No.29 of 2020Hand
in M.P.No.15 of 2020 in R.C.O.P.No.45Copy
of 2018 filed by the Plaintiff
Ex.P20 19.11.2020 Fair Order in M.P.No.15 of 2020 inCertified
R.C.O.P.No.45 of 2018 Copy
Ex.P21 19.11.2020 Decreetal order in M.P.No.15 of 2020 inCertified
R.C.O.P.No.45 of 2018 Copy
Ex.P22 19.11.2020 Fair Order in M.P.No.29 of 2020 inCertified
R.C.O.P.No.45 of 2018 Copy
Ex.P23 19.11.2020 Decreetal Order in M.P.No.29 of 2020 inCertified
R.C.O.P.No.45 of 2018 Copy
Ex.P24 09.12.2020 Counter Affidavit in R.C.O.P.No.45 ofHand
2018 filed by the defendant Copy
Ex.P25 04.01.2021 Demand Draft Nos.2 Xerox
Copy
Ex.P26 21.01.2021 Fair Order in M.P.No.121 of 2018 inCertified
R.C.O.P.No.45 of 2018 Copy
Ex.P27 21.01.2021 Decreetal Order in M.P.No.121 of 2018Certified
in R.C.O.P.No.45 of 2018 Copy
Ex.P28 05.03.2021 Legal Notice issued by the plaintiff Office
copy
Ex.P29 15.03.2021 Acknowledgment Card Nos.2 Original
Ex.P30 19.04.2021 Fair Order in I.A.No.21 of 2021 inCertified
R.C.A.No.3 of 2021 Copy
Ex.P31 19.04.2021 Decreetal Order in I.A.No.21 of 2021 inCertified
R.C.A.No.3 of 2021 Copy
Ex.P32 05.07.2021 Affidavit and Petition inHand
C.M.P.No.11753 of 2021 inCopy
Ex.P33 07.07.2021 Grounds in C.R.P.(NPD).No.1492 ofHand
2021 Copy
Ex.P34 08.07.2021 Order in C.R.P.(PD).No.1151 of 2021 Xerox
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
Copy
Ex.P35 04.08.2021 Memo of Revised Calculation Hand
Copy
Ex.P36 26.08.2021 Fair Order in R.C.O.P.No.45 of 2018 Certified
Copy
Ex.P37 26.08.2021 Decreetal order in R.C.O.P.No.45 ofCertified
2018 Copy
Ex.P38 28.09.2021 Order in C.R.P(NPD).No.1492 of 2021 Certified
Copy
Ex.P39 23.12.2021 Memo of Calculation Office
Copy
Ex.P40 Company Details Web Copy
Ex.P41 01.04.2013 Deed of Partnership cum Retirement Xerox
Copy
Sl.No. Date Particulars of the Document
Ex.D1 17.10.2022 Notice
.
21.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
P.DHANABAL, J
ssb
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
21.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/11/2025 06:07:21 pm )
