9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... num on the arrears of rent from September 9, 1998 to the date of decree dated March 24, 2008. 3. Brief facts leading to the present controversy are these.The Respondent--S. Kamalaveni Sundaram (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlady') let out ground floor of her property situate at MRC Nagar, South Beach Avenue, Chennai to the 2nd Appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') in the month of February, 1990 on a monthly rent of Rs. 5600/- payable according to the English calendar month. The tenancy was for non-residential purposes viz., for running the banking business. The landlady filed the suit for fixation of fair rent against the tenant in 1996. The Small Causes Court, Chennai vide its order dated March 27, 1998 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71,832/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from September 9, 1998 to January 21, 2000 and from July 21, 2005 to the date of payment. The tenant was given three months' time to pay the amount from the date of the decree. 7. The landlady challenged the judgment and decree dated March 24, 2008 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The Single Judge of the High Court after hearing the parties allowed the appeal preferred by the landlady in part and directed the tenant to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit, i.e., from September 9, 1998 until March 24, 2008 and @ 6% per annum from March 25, 2008 till the date of realization of the principal amount of rent. 8. On July 26, 2010, while issuing no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmediately nor within reasonable time. As a matter of fact, the matter remained dormant in the hands of the landlady and the plaint was re-presented after five years and six months on July 20, 2005.Obviously, the landlady cannot derive advantage of her inaction or lack of diligence in re-presenting the plaint. Had the landlady re-presented the plaint within reasonable time, the matter would have been decided long back. As the facts reveal, the plaint was re-presented on July 20, 2005 and the suit was decreed by the trial court on March 24, 2008. In the circumstances, therefore, the award of interest for the period January 20, 2000 to July 20, 2005 does not seem to be justified. We are not persuaded by the submission that by not filing the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
