FACTS:
The respondent, S. Kamalaveni Sundaram let out ground floor of her property situated at MRC Nagar, South Beach Avenue, Chennai to the 2nd appellant, the tenant in 1990. The landlady filed the suit for fixation of fair rent in 1996 against the tenant. The Small Causes Court, Chennai fixed the fair rent at Rs. 32,356/-. The tenant vacated the leased premises, however, the tenant was in arrears of rent at the time of vacation of premises. The landlady sent a notice through her lawyer and called upon the tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,71,832/- towards difference in rent upto May, 1998 and also rent for the months June, July and August, 1998 after giving adjustment of sum of Rs. 33,600/- paid by the tenant in advance. The tenant failed and neglected to comply with the notice sent by the landlady.
The landlady then filed a suit and the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai passed a decree on March 24, 2008 in favour of the landlady and directed the tenant to pay to her the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 5,71,832/- 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 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 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 and @ 6% per annum from March 25, 2008 till the date of realization of the principal amount of rent.
The tenants have then filed the special leave petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
The question for consideration in this appeal, by special leave, was whether the Single Judge of the Madras High Court was justified in directing the 2nd appellant to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the arrears of rent from September 9, 1998 to the date of decree dated March 24, 2008.
HELD:
The Hon’ble Court observed that the order of the High Court to the extent the interest has been awarded to the landlady for the period from January 20, 2000 to July 20, 2005 does not hold good. The Court further added that the landlady cannot derive advantage of her inaction or lack of diligence in re-presenting the plaint. Had the landlady represented the plaint within reasonable time, the matter would have been decided long back. Further, the Court clarified that Section 34 of the CPC does not empower the court to award pre-suit interest. And thus the appeal was allowed in part.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS