Case Note & Summary
The present Regular First Appeal was filed by the defendant, M/s. Hinduja Fashions, against the judgment and decree dated 6.11.2015 passed by the VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-19) in O.S.No.9081/2013, decreeing the suit for recovery of money. The respondent-plaintiff, M/s. Geekay Kusam Masala & Spice Extracts Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Garuda Developers Pvt. Ltd.), had instituted the suit for recovery of Rs.6,29,249/- with interest at 24% p.a. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of premises No.76, Industrial Suburb, Yeshwantpur, Bengaluru, on a monthly rent of Rs.2,66,634/- inclusive of TDS. The defendant vacated the premises after the lease period and handed over vacant possession, and at that time, the defendant also took back the refundable deposit of Rs.25 lakhs. However, the defendant failed to pay the rent for the period from 1.4.2012 to 31.3.2013, amounting to Rs.6,29,249/-. The defendant contested the suit, claiming that the rent was paid by cheque and that the plaintiff had acknowledged receipt. The trial court, after considering the evidence, decreed the suit for Rs.6,29,249/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of suit till realization. The defendant appealed. The High Court framed the issue of whether the defendant had paid the rent for the suit period. The court noted that the defendant did not produce any bank statements or other documentary evidence to prove payment, and the alleged cheques were not shown to have been encashed. The court held that the burden of proof lay on the defendant to prove payment, and the defendant failed to discharge that burden. The court also found that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was proper and that the interest rate of 6% p.a. was reasonable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Regular First Appeal - Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC - Appeal against decree for recovery of money - The defendant-appellant challenged the trial court's decree for arrears of rent and interest - The High Court held that the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving payment of rent for the disputed period, and the trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence - Appeal dismissed (Paras 1-10). B) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Section 106 - Rent Payment - The defendant claimed to have paid rent by cheque but did not produce bank statements or other corroborative evidence - The court held that the burden to prove payment lies on the defendant, and mere assertion without documentary proof is insufficient - Held that the defendant failed to prove payment (Paras 5-8). C) Interest - Award of Interest - Interest Act, 1978 - The trial court awarded interest at 6% p.a. from date of suit till realization - The High Court upheld the rate as reasonable, noting that the plaintiff had claimed 24% p.a. but the court reduced it to 6% p.a. - Held that the interest rate was just and proper (Para 9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defendant had paid the rent for the suit period and whether the trial court was justified in decreeing the suit for recovery of money.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 6.11.2015 passed in O.S.No.9081/2013 by the VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on defendant to prove payment of rent
- Section 106 of Evidence Act
- 1872
- Order 41 Rule 1 CPC
- Section 96 CPC
- Interest Act
- 1978
