1998 (8) TMI 633 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eviction of tenants.
2. Recovery of arrears of rent.
3. Recovery of construction costs and interest.
4. Validity of amendments to pleadings.
5. Jurisdiction of Civil Court in eviction matters.
6. Calculation of mesne profits and damages.
7. Rate of interest on amounts due.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eviction of Tenants:
The landlord filed OS No. 1003 of 1983 for eviction of tenants from the premises. The tenants defaulted on rent payments from September 1980 onwards. The landlord issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy by the end of May 1983. The lower court decreed OS 1003 of 1983, directing the tenants to deliver vacant possession of the first-floor mulgis and awarded future mesne profits from July 1983 until possession was delivered.

2. Recovery of Arrears of Rent:
The landlord filed OS No. 922 of 1991 for recovery of arrears of rent from December 1980 to April 1983. The lower court decreed the suit, awarding arrears of rent for 20 months at Rs. 1,500 per month. The tenant's appeal (CCCA 177 of 1995) questioning this decree was dismissed as there was no proof of rent payment during this period.

3. Recovery of Construction Costs and Interest:
The tenant filed OS No. 1 of 1984 for recovery of construction costs incurred for the first-floor mulgis, with interest. The lower court decreed the suit for Rs. 95,898 with interest at 12% per annum from 2-9-1984 till the date of the suit. The appellate court modified the interest rate to 15% per annum from 2-9-1981 till the date of the suit and 12% thereafter until realization.

4. Validity of Amendments to Pleadings:
The landlord initially admitted in OS No. 922 of 1991 that the construction costs would be adjusted against rent but later sought to amend the pleadings to state that the tenants constructed the first floor without any liability on the landlord. The appellate court held that the amendment was untrue and should not have been permitted, as it contradicted the landlord's earlier admissions and documentary evidence.

5. Jurisdiction of Civil Court in Eviction Matters:
The tenant argued that since the rent for each mulgi would be less than Rs. 1,000 after apportionment, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction, and the matter should be before the Rent Controller. The appellate court rejected this contention, noting that no such plea was raised in the pleadings and that the plaintiff was recognized as the landlord for the entire property.

6. Calculation of Mesne Profits and Damages:
The landlord claimed damages for use and occupation from July 1983 onwards at varying rates. The appellate court awarded damages at Rs. 1,500 per month from July 1983 to July 1984, Rs. 250 per sq. ft. from August 1984 to July 1989, Rs. 325 per sq. ft. from August 1989 to July 1994, and Rs. 400 per sq. ft. from August 1994 until the date of vacating the premises.

7. Rate of Interest on Amounts Due:
The tenant argued that the lower court's interest rate of 12% per annum on the construction costs was inadequate, given the contractual rate of 36% per annum. The appellate court, referencing a Supreme Court decision, deemed 15% per annum from 2-9-1981 till the date of the suit and 12% thereafter as reasonable.

Conclusion:
- CCCA 196 of 1994: Partly allowed; tenant entitled to refund of Rs. 4,500 deposit.
- CCCA 64 of 1995: Dismissed; eviction decree and cross-objections dismissed, mesne profits adjusted.
- CCCA 177 of 1995: Dismissed; arrears of rent decree confirmed.
- Time to vacate premises: Three months.
- No costs awarded.