Pendency of Second Appeal without interim stay does not bar recovery of arrears of rent.

The Plaintiff (Appellant), a Devasthanam, sought arrears of rent from the Defendant (Respondent) for a 25-cent vacant land.

In a prior suit (O.S. No. 208 of 1999), the Trial Court fixed the rent at ₹375/- per month; on appeal (A.S. No. 16 of 2000), the Sub-Court confirmed the rate of ₹375/- but held it was payable from the date of notice (March 15, 1999) rather than retrospectively.

The Defendant challenged this in a Second Appeal (S.A. No. 1275 of 2002), which remained pending without any interim stay.

In the present suit (O.S. No. 163 of 2006), the Plaintiff claimed arrears of ₹13,500 for the period 2003–2005 based on the ₹375/- rate.

The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed it, holding the claim unsustainable solely because the quantum of rent was sub-judice in the pending Second Appeal.

1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in law in rejecting the relief to the Plaintiff on the sole reason that a connected Second Appeal (S.A. No. 1275/2002) was pending, despite the absence of an interim order.

The Court applied Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing Second Appeals.

It relied on the principle that the mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay of the decree under execution or challenge, particularly when no interim stay has been granted by the superior court.

Furthermore, the court considered the doctrine of party admission, noting the Defendant’s prior agreement during arguments in A.S. No. 16 of 2000 to pay the enhanced rent from the date of notice.

The High Court found the First Appellate Court’s reasoning legally flawed. It noted that the decree in A.S. No. 16 of 2000, which fixed the rent at ₹375/-, was active and had not been stayed by the High Court in the pending S.A. No. 1275 of 2002.

The Court emphasized that a fresh cause of action for subsequent arrears is maintainable based on an existing decree unless a stay is specifically operative.

Additionally, the Court observed that the Defendant had admitted to paying a portion of the rent (₹16,058/-) by cheque, which P.W.1 acknowledged.

Since S.A. No. 1275 of 2002 was dismissed on the same day as the present appeal, the quantum of ₹375/- stood finalized, necessitating the reversal of the First Appellate Court’s judgment.

It held that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover rent at ₹375/- per month for the period from January 01, 2003, to December 31, 2005, with 6% interest per annum.

The court directed that the sum of ₹16,058/- already paid by the Defendant must be adjusted against the total dues and proportionate interest. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.