Full Judgment Text
NON_REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1893 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No.781 of 2019)
The Periyar District Consumer Cooperative
Wholesale Stores Ltd. No. AA467 .…Appellant(s)
Versus
B.Balagopal (Died) Through LRs.
& Ors. …. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna,J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant is before this Court in this appeal
assailing the judgment dated 14.11.2017 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Madras in A.S.No.811 of
2009. Through the said judgment the High Court has
dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the
judgment and decree dated 18.08.2008 passed by the
Signature Not Verified
Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court
Digitally signed by
MADHU BALA
Date: 2020.03.02
16:33:07 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 14
No.I), Erode in O.S.No.37 of 2007. The respondents
herein were the plaintiffs in the said suit while the
appellant herein was the defendant. For the sake of
convenience and clarity, the parties will be referred to in
the rank assigned to them before the Trial Court below.
3. The undisputed position in the present case is that
the plaintiff is the owner of the premises in question
wherein the defendant was inducted as the tenant under
the lease agreement dated 09.07.1980. The said lease
was for a period of three years and the monthly rental
was fixed at Rs.6,500/. The advance of Rs.20,000/ was
paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Subsequently the
plaintiff filed the civil suit in O.S.No.95/1990 seeking
eviction of the defendant and vacant possession of the
suit schedule property. The Trial Court through its
judgment and decree dated 08.02.1995 directed the
defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the
premises and the compensation of Rs.15,000/ was
ordered for the period of three years prior to filing the suit
till date of possession.
Page 2 of 14
4. The defendant, claiming to be aggrieved filed an
appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code
before the High Court of Madras in Appeal Suit
No.714/1995. In the said appeal it was ultimately agreed
that the defendant would vacate the premises in question
after six months and for the said period the monthly
compensation of Rs.50,000/ would be paid to the
plaintiff. The defendant has accordingly vacated the
premises during November 2003. In the earlier
proceedings since liberty was reserved to be plaintiff to
initiate an appropriate proceeding for damages, the
plaintiffs have initiated the present round of litigation.
5. In that regard the suit in O.S.No.37/2007 was filed
by the plaintiffs seeking damages at the rate of
Rs.89,000/ per month. The Trial Court having adverted
to the rival contentions has decreed the suit through its
judgment dated 18.08.2008. The Trial Court has awarded
the monthly compensation of Rs.89,000/ for the periods
14.07.2000 to 14.07.2003. Thus, in all, the suit was
decreed for a sum of Rs.26,98,367/. Further sum of
Page 3 of 14
Rs.3,56,000/ was ordered towards future loss and cost
of the suit. The defendant claiming to be aggrieved by the
same preferred the appeal before the High Court in
A.S.No.811/2009 which was dismissed through the
judgment dated 14.11.2017. It is in that light the
defendant claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in
this appeal.
6. Heard Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel
for the respondents and perused the appeal papers.
7. The factual position relating to the tenancy, the
earlier round of litigation and the defendant having
thereafter vacated the premises during November 2003,
there is no serious dispute. The only issue for
consideration is with regard to the liability or otherwise of
the defendant to pay the damages as sought by the
plaintiffs and in that regard, whether the claim as put
forth by the plaintiffs and awarded by the Trial Court is
justified. As noted, the lease had commenced on
09.07.1980 and rental fixed at that point of time was in a
Page 4 of 14
sum of Rs.6,500/ per month. At the earlier instance the
suit seeking eviction of the defendant was filed in
O.S.No.95/1990 and the same was decreed directing the
defendant to vacate and pay the compensation at
Rs.15,000/ per month. The compensation was awarded
for a period of three years.
8. The defendant claiming to be aggrieved filed the
appeal in A.S.No.714/1995. The appeal was disposed of
on 26.02.2003 directing payment of past damages of
Rs.3,47,953/ at Rs.15,000/ per month on or before
13.03.2003 and the defendant was granted six months’
time to vacate the premises. During the said period of six
months the defendant was directed to pay the damages at
Rs.50,000/ per month. However, liberty was reserved to
the plaintiffs/landlords to file a separate suit for damages
at a higher rate than Rs.50,000/ which had been fixed
by the High Court. It is in that light the subsequent suit
O.S.No.37/2007 was filed seeking for damages at the rate
of Rs.89,000/ per month.
Page 5 of 14
9. In the course of consideration in the suit the Trial
Court has kept in view the provisions as contained in
Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu (Lease and Rent) Control Act
which provides for fixation of fair rent and in that light
had arrived at a conclusion that the monthly rent would
work out to the sum of Rs.1,08,929/. However, since the
plaintiff had limited the claim for damages at Rs.89,000/
per month, the suit was accordingly decreed. Insofar as
the nature of the consideration made by the Trial Court,
since the area of the premises which had been let out is
not in dispute and since the rental for such area was
calculated at the rate as prescribed under the Rent
Control Act, the legality of the decision cannot be
assailed. It is in that light the High Court while re
appreciating the matter in the appeal in A.S.No.811/2009
has referred to the very aspects taken note by the Trial
Court and has accordingly dismissed the appeal.
10. The learned senior counsel for the appellant while
assailing the decree would contend that though the
factual aspects are not in dispute, the manner in which
Page 6 of 14
the enhanced rent by way of damages has been awarded
by the Trial Court is not justified. It is contended that in
the earlier round of litigation, when an application was
filed by the plaintiffs in the eviction proceedings in
A.S.No.714/1995, an understanding had been reached
and the defendant had accordingly agreed to vacate the
premises in six months and have adhered to such
undertaking and vacated the premises during November
2003. In such event merely because liberty was reserved
in the said proceedings, instituting a suit of the present
nature seeking higher damages would not be justified
more so in a circumstance when the High Court in the
earlier instance had fixed a higher rent for the said period
of six months. It is further contended that the defendant
is a Consumer Cooperative Society and would not be in a
position to bear such heavy financial burden. It is
pointed out that the defendant has already paid the sum
of Rs.10 lakhs towards the decretal amount on
27.04.2010 and as such the matter should come to an
Page 7 of 14
end at that. He, therefore, seeks that the above appeal be
allowed.
11. The learned advocate for the plaintiffs would
however seek to sustain the judgment and decree passed
by the Trial Court. He contends that though the plaintiff
was entitled to the damages even for the earlier period,
keeping in view the law of limitation the Trial Court has
decreed the suit only for the period of three years prior to
the date on which the defendant vacated. In such event
the defendant should not raise any further grievance in
the matter. It is contended that in O.S.No.95/1990 the
Trial Court had in fact fixed the compensation at
Rs.15,000/ per month while directing eviction. The
defendant instead of accepting the same, paying the
damages and vacating the premises had filed the appeal
and remained in possession for the further period. It is
contended that in the instant case the Trial Court has
kept in view the provision of law and has accordingly
arrived at an appropriate conclusion relating to damages
which does not call for interference more particularly
Page 8 of 14
when it is restricted to the claim which is lesser the
admissible damages.
12. Having taken note of the manner of consideration
made by the Trial Court as also the High Court in the
earlier round of litigation relating to eviction and the
present round of litigation relating to damages, an
appropriate consideration is necessary in the background
of the contentions put forth by the learned senior
advocate for the defendant and the learned advocate for
the plaintiffs and in that light keeping in view the status
of the parties and their conduct. As noticed the Trial
Court while decreeing the suit through its judgment
dated 18.08.2008 has made reference to the Rent Control
Act, kept in mind the provisions contained therein and
has thereafter arrived at a conclusion. The High Court on
reappreciating the same has endorsed the view. On that
aspect further consideration would not be necessary.
13. However, what is to be taken note in the present
facts is that, though the ejectment suit was decreed on
08.02.1995 and the appeal had been immediately filed by
Page 9 of 14
the defendant in A.S.No.714/1995, during the pendency
of the appeal, in view of an application filed by the
plaintiff, an understanding was reached that the
defendant agreed to vacate the premises within six
months. While granting the said period of six months to
vacate, the High Court, for the said period had also fixed
the compensation at the sum of Rs.50,000/ per month.
It is no doubt true that the High Court had also reserved
the liberty to the plaintiff to seek for a higher amount by
filing a separate suit, if need be. In a normal
circumstance if the tenant had not voluntarily vacated, a
claim for such damages would be very much justified.
Even otherwise since such right had been reserved, the
plaintiff no doubt was entitled to institute the suit.
14. In the present facts, during the course of
consideration of this appeal what appealed to this Court
is also that the appellant is a District Consumer
Cooperative Wholesale Stores and the premises had been
taken on rent for its activity and it is not a business
activity in the strict sense of the term but is cooperative
Page 10 of 14
activity for the benefit of members who are shareholders.
In the process of eviction when time of six months was
granted to vacate and rent had been fixed at Rs.50,000/
per month the same was also paid by them without
default. In such circumstance it was suggested by this
Court that the parties arrive at an amicable settlement so
that either of them are not entirely prejudiced and the
equities could be balanced. The learned senior counsel
for the defendant was receptive to the said suggestion
and had indicated that in addition to the sum of Rs.10
lakhs paid towards the decretal amount, a reasonable
amount suggested by this Court would be paid and the
matter would be brought to a close. The learned counsel
for the plaintiff however did not put forth any suggestion
for amicable settlement but insisted on payment of the
entire amount under the decree.
15. In that background having taken into
consideration all materials and the special circumstance
noted above, we are of the opinion that a modification of
the judgment and decree is required to be made in the
Page 11 of 14
interest of justice so as to limit the decretal amount to a
reasonable quantum. In that regard reference has already
been made to the fact that the defendant is a Consumer
Cooperative Wholesale Stores and has already vacated
after paying the enhanced amount ordered by the High
Court. If substantial unplanned expenditure is heaped on
them for the retrospective period it would be put in a
financially precarious position. At the same time for
having used the premises and considering the fact that
the premises was taken in the year 1980 and the
enhancement in such cases will be gradual, the drastic
application of the prevailing rent though not justified in
the present facts and circumstance, the plaintiffs would
be entitled to a reasonable compensation. In such event
when the High Court at first instance in
A.S.No.714/1995 had fixed the damages at Rs.50,000/
per month for the period of six months after which the
defendant was to vacate, it would be justified if the said
amount of Rs.50,000/ per month is made applicable
even to the earlier period of three years which was taken
Page 12 of 14
into consideration by the Trial Court. In our opinion such
order will meet the ends of justice.
16. Therefore, the damages for the periods 14.07.2000
to 14.07.2003 if calculated at the rate of Rs.50,000 per
month would work out to Rs.18 lakhs in all. As noted,
the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs towards the
decretal amount on 27.04.2010. Further for the
overlapping period between March to July 2003 which
was fixed by the High Court for vacating, the damages
have already been paid at Rs.50,000/ per month. If that
be the position, the matter could put at rest by directing
the defendant to pay further sum of Rs.7,50,000/ to the
plaintiff in full and final settlement of all claims, by
modifying the decree to that extent.
17. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) Judgment and decree dated 18.08.2008
passed in Suit No.37/2007 affirmed by the High
Court in AS No.811/2009 stands modified holding
that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the
sum of Rs.17,50,000/ being the lumpsum
damages for the periods 14.07.2000 to 17.07.2003.
Page 13 of 14
(ii) Since the sum of Rs.10 lakhs has been paid
by the defendant to the plaintiffs on 27.04.2010,
the balance of sum of Rs.7,50,000/ shall be paid
within a period of three months from this date.
(iii) If the amount of Rs. 7,50,000/ is not paid
within the time frame of three months, the same
shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per
annum on the expiry of three months till the date
of payment.
(iv) On payment of the amount ordered herein the
same will stand in full and final quit of all claims
between the parties and all litigations shall come to
an end.
(v) The appeal is allowed in part. The parties
shall however bear their own costs in this appeal.
(vi) All applications stand disposed of.
………….…………….J.
(R. BANUMATHI)
………….…………….J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
March 02, 2020
Page 14 of 14