Case Note & Summary
The Plaintiff, Sri Veeraraghavaswamy Devasthanam, represented by its Honorary Agent, filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent against the Defendant, Murugesan, who was a tenant of a vacant land of 25 cents in Survey No.509/B2 at Ikkadu Village. The Defendant's father was originally a tenant, and there were prior suits for rent recovery. The rent was fixed at Rs.375/- per month by a decree in O.S. No.208 of 1999, confirmed in appeal. The Plaintiff issued a notice on December 29, 2003 demanding arrears, but the Defendant refused to pay at the enhanced rate. The Plaintiff filed O.S. No.163 of 2006 seeking Rs.13,500/- as arrears for 36 months from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2005 with 6% interest. The Trial Court decreed the suit on August 7, 2009. The Defendant appealed in A.S. No.4 of 2011, and the First Appellate Court reversed the decree on October 8, 2012. The Plaintiff then filed the present Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the First Appellate Court's failure to frame proper points for determination and the perversity of its findings. The Court noted that the First Appellate Court did not properly consider the evidence and reversed the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the First Appellate Court's judgment, and restored the Trial Court's decree with costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court held that the First Appellate Court failed to frame proper points for determination and its findings were perverse, warranting interference under Section 100 CPC. (Paras 5-10) B) Rent Recovery - Arrears of Rent - Leasehold Rights - The Plaintiff-Devasthanam sought recovery of arrears of rent at Rs.375/- per month for 36 months, which was decreed by the Trial Court but reversed by the First Appellate Court without proper reasoning. (Paras 3-4) C) Leasehold Rights - Permanent Structure - Tenant's Rights - The Defendant erected a permanent superstructure without permission, but the suit was only for rent arrears, not eviction. (Para 4.3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court's decree for arrears of rent without framing proper points for determination and whether the findings are perverse.
Final Decision
The Second Appeal is allowed. The Judgment and Decree dated October 08, 2012 in A.S. No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruvallur, is set aside. The Judgment and Decree dated August 07, 2009 in O.S. No.163 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur, is restored. No costs.
Law Points
- Section 100 CPC
- substantial question of law
- concurrent findings
- perversity
- rent arrears
- leasehold rights
- permanent structure
