Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Sri Veerarghavaswamy Devasthanam, a temple managed by a hereditary trustee, filed a suit for recovery of rent arrears amounting to Rs.13,500 together with interest against the defendant Murugesan, who was a tenant of a vacant land measuring 25 cents in Tiruvallur District. The defendant's father was originally a tenant and after his demise, the defendant continued in possession. The temple had periodically enhanced rent from Rs.125 to Rs.375 per month after instructions from the HR & CE Department, sending a notice dated March 15, 1999. The defendant refused to pay the enhanced rent, contending it was unreasonable and that the property was situated in a village. He admitted ownership of the plaintiff but claimed readiness to pay only Rs.125. The trial court decreed the suit holding the enhancement reasonable due to nearby developments like Block Development Office, Main Road, and hospitals. On appeal, the first appellate court partly modified the decree, directing payment of Rs.125 per month from July 1, 1995 to March 14, 1999, and Rs.375 per month from the date of notice, March 15, 1999, holding that retrospective enhancement was not permissible. Aggrieved, the defendant filed this second appeal which was admitted on the substantial question of law regarding the legality of rent enhancement. During the second appeal, the defendant filed a petition under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking to introduce additional documents such as encumbrance certificate, sale deed, highway acquisition notices, and award to argue that the suit property actually belonged to third parties and not to the temple. The defendant claimed he was under a bona fide mistake and only discovered the true ownership in 2009 during a highway survey. The plaintiff opposed the petition, citing earlier suits and appeals where title was never disputed and where decrees had been passed accepting the temple's ownership. The plaintiff also highlighted that the defendant or the alleged true owners never filed any suit for declaration of title. The arguments on the petition were heard, but the final judgment of the High Court on the second appeal and the petition is not included in the provided text, leaving the ultimate decision unknown.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the claim of the plaintiff for enhancement of rent is legally sustainable in law?
Law Points
- Rent can be enhanced only on notice
- enhancement cannot be retrospective
- reasonableness of rent enhancement depends on surrounding circumstances
- tenant cannot deny landlord's title without legal basis
- Order XLI Rule 27 CPC requires relevance and due diligence for additional evidence
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (04) 40
S.A. No.1275 of 2002 and C.M.P. No.5099 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.10612 of 2002
For Appellant: Mr. J. Kalidas for Mr.S.Jaganathan; For Respondent: Mr.M.S.Subramanian
Sri Veerarghavaswamy Devasthanam, Tiruvallur, By Its Hereditary Trustee, The Jeer Of Ahobila Mutt, Rep.by his Power of Attorney Agent P.N.Parthasarathy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Suit for recovery of rent arrears and subsequent second appeal against partial appellate decree
Remedy Sought
Appellant (defendant/tenant) sought to set aside the judgment of the first appellate court which partly allowed the plaintiff's claim by directing payment of Rs.125 per month from July 1, 1995 to March 14, 1999, and Rs.375 per month from March 15, 1999 onwards
Filing Reason
The plaintiff temple demanded enhanced rent of Rs.375 per month from Rs.125, based on instructions from the HR & CE Department and surrounding developments; the defendant refused to pay the enhanced rent, claiming it was unreasonable
Previous Decisions
Trial court (District Munsif, Tiruvallur) decreed the suit for the entire amount of Rs.13,500 with interest at 6% per annum on 07-04-2000; first appellate court (Sub Court, Tiruvallur) partly modified the decree on 29-01-2001, limiting the enhanced rent to the period after the notice date
Issues
Whether the claim of the plaintiff for enhancement of rent is legally sustainable in law?
Whether additional documents under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC should be received to challenge the plaintiff's title over the suit property?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant/defendant contended that enhancement from Rs.125 to Rs.375 was unreasonable, the property is in a village and guideline value cannot be the basis; he was ready to pay Rs.125 and had been depositing it
Appellant later sought to introduce documents to deny plaintiff's title, arguing that the property belonged to third parties and that he was under a bona fide mistake until 2009 when highway acquisition revealed the true ownership
Respondent/plaintiff argued that the enhancement was reasonable given surrounding developments like Block Development Office, Main Road, and hospitals; the tenant had admitted ownership in earlier suits and appeals where decrees were passed in the temple's favour; the new documents were irrelevant and an afterthought
Judgment Excerpts
Whether the claim of the plaintiff for enhancement of rent is legally sustainable in law ?
The Defendant, by reply dated April 07, 1999, refused to pay the enhanced rent and also denied the Plaintiff's right to recover possession.
The First Appellate Court observed that the Plaintiff - Devasthanam is not entitled to claim arrears of rent of Rs.375/- per month from June 30, 1996, when Ex-A.1 - Notice for enhancement of rent itself was sent only on March 15, 1999.
Procedural History
Suit O.S.No.208 of 1999 filed before District Munsif, Tiruvallur, and decreed on 07-04-2000; appeal A.S.No.16 of 2000 partly allowed by Sub Court, Tiruvallur on 29-01-2001; second appeal S.A.No.1275 of 2002 admitted on 13-09-2002 by High Court; C.M.P.No.5099 of 2023 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100, Order XLI Rule 27
- Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001: Section 19(5)
