Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO. 9721 OF 2006
Soora Balasubramaniam Chetty & Ors. … App
ellants
Vs.
Arulmigu Ekambaranathar Thirukoil,
Kancheepuram & Ors. … Respondents
O R D E R
R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.
A huge area of 50 Grounds of land in the city of
Chennai was leased by the first respondent temple to the
predecessors of Petitioners 1 to 6 and respondents 4 to 9
in the year 1899 for a period of 99 years, on a monthly
rent of Rs.39.34. The Lessees put up a structure in the
leased land. The said building has been let out by the
lessees to the Postal Department (respondents 2 and 3) on a
monthly rent of Rs.90,000/-.
2. On the expiry of the lease, the first respondent
temple filed a suit for possession against the lessees and
2
postal department in C.S. No.769/2001 on the file of the
High Court of Madras. The claim of the lessees under
section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act was
rejected by the High Court and SLP against the said
judgment was rejected by this Court.
3. In the suit for possession, the first respondent
temple filed an application seeking a direction to the
postal department (respondents 2 and 3) to pay the rents
directly to the temple instead of the lessees (defendants 1
to 12 in the suit) as the lease in their favour had
expired. Respondents 2 and 3 also filed an application in
the said suit, seeking leave to deposit the rents.
4. The learned Single Judge heard the said applications
and made an order dated 4.4.2006 directing that fifty
percent of the arrears of rent due by respondents 2 and 3
(aggregating to about Rs.9,90,000/-) be paid to the first
respondent temple. He also directed continuation of the
same arrangement in future also, pending disposal of the
suit. The said order was challenged by the petitioners in
an intra-Court appeal. The Division Bench found no reason
to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and
rejected the appeal by a brief judgment dated 18.4.2006.
3
The petitioners have filed this special leave petition
seeking leave to challenge the said decision.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
petitioners and respondents 4 to 9 were the lessees under
the first respondent temple and that the postal department
was their tenant; and as the postal department had no
privity of contract with the first respondent temple who is
the owner of the land, the postal department cannot
directly pay the rents to the first respondent temple.
6. It is true that the postal department was inducted
into the premises as tenant by the lessees and that as the
tenant of the lessees, liable to pay the rents to the
lessees. But the impugned interim order has been passed
taking note of certain subsequent events. The lease period
in favour of the lessees has expired. The lease has not
been renewed and the first respondent temple has filed a
suit for possession against the lessees as also the postal
department. In the said suit, the temple has also prayed
for payment of Rs.985,950/- per month as damages for use
and occupation from 1.10.2000 in addition to a sum of
Rs.27,37,500/- for the period 21.11.1998 to 30.9.2000. The
first respondent temple has no security for the amount that
4
may ultimately become due, if the suit is decreed. In the
circumstances, to safeguard the interest of the first
respondent temple, if the Court felt that 50% of the rent
should be paid by the postal department to the first
respondent temple purely as an interim measure and without
prejudice to the rights of parties and subject to the final
decision in the suit, the petitioners can have no grievance.
7. The learned counsel for petitioners next contented
that on account of certain vagueness in para 7 of the order
dated 4.4.2006 of the learned Single Judge, the postal
department, has misinterpreted the direction and paying to
the first respondent temple, the entire rent, instead of
50%, from the date of the order.
8. When the order of the learned Single Judge is read in
entirety, it is clear that the learned Single Judge had
directed that 50% of the rent should be paid to the temple,
by the postal department, and the remaining 50% of the rent
to the lessees. Para 7 of the judgment of the Single Judge,
though not specific in this behalf, when read with the
earlier paras, makes it clear that the direction is that
only 50% of the rent shall be paid to the first respondent
temple.
5
9. Respondents 2 and 3 have bona fide interpreted para 7
of the order of the learned Single Judge to mean that they
should pay entire rent of Rs.90,000/- to the first
respondent temple from the date of the order (4.4.2006).
The payment till now (upto 31.10.2008) shall not therefore
be disturbed. At all events any payment will be subject to
the final decision in the suit for possession and damages
filed by the first respondent temple.
10. We therefore clarify that respondents 2 and 3 shall
henceforth (that is from 1.11.2008) pay 50% of the rent to
their landlords (defendants 1 to 12 in the suit) and 50% of
the rent to the first respondent temple, during the
pendency of the suit. In regard to the arrears for the
period upto 31.3.2006, referred to in para 6 of the learned
Single Judge’s Order, the 50% of arrears said to have been
withheld by the respondents 2 and 3 shall be paid to the
lessees of the land, if it is not already paid.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we
request the learned Single Judge before whom the first
respondent’s suit for possession is pending to dispose of
the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months.
6
12. With the above clarifications, the special leave
petition is accordingly disposed of.
………………………..…………..J.
(R V Raveendran)
New Delhi; ……………………………………….J.
October 23, 2008. (Aftab Alam)