LexSECRETARY/GENERAL MANAGER CHENNAI CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ANR. versus S. KAMALAVENI SUNDARAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 66 A SECRETARY/GENERAL MANAGER CHENNAI CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. & ANR. v. -r- S. KAMALAVENI SUNDARAM (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2011) B JANUARY 4, 2011 [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: C. s. 34 - Interest - Plaint re-presented five years and six months after its return - Interest on principal amount - HELD: Interest is awardable pendente lite taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and not as a matter · D of course - Section 34 does not empower the court to award : pre-suit interest which would ordinarily depend on the contract . >- between the parties - Direction of the High Courl to pay interest for the period from return of the plaint to its re- presentation set aside - Rent Control and Eviction. E The respondent landlady, after the eviction of appellant-2, the tenant, filed a suit on 9.9.1998 for recovery of arrears of rent and for 18% interest thereon. The plaint was returned on 20.1.2000 because of certain -r defects. It was re-presented after a gap of about 5 years F and 6 months on 20.7.2005. The suit was decreed on 24.3.2008, with 6% interest from 9.9.1998 to 21.1.2000 and from 21.7.2005 to the date of payment. On appeal by the landlady, the High Court allowed 12% interest from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and 6% G interest thereafter till realisation of principal amount of rent. -,.C. Partly allowing the appeal filed by the tenant, the Court H 66 SEC./GEN. MANAGER CHENNAI CENTRAL COOP. BANK 67 - LTD. v. S. KAMALAVENI SUNDARAM HELD: Interest is awardable pendente lite taking into A , consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and not as a matter of course. Section 34 CPC empowers the court to award interest for the period from the date of the suit to the date of the decree and from the date of the decree to the date of payment where the decree is for 8 payment of money. It does not empower the court to , award pre-suit interest, which would ordinarily depend on the contract (express or implied) between the parties !lr some statutory provisions or the mercantile usage. In the instant case, the plaint after its return on 20.1.2000, c was not re-presented immediately 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 any advantage of D ·her inaction or lack of diligence in re-presenting the plaint. - --<..._ The direction of the High Court to the tenant to pay interest@ 12% per annum on the due rent for the period January 20, 2000 to July 20, 2005 is set aside. [para 10- 12] [70-G-H; 71-A-D] E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 11.3.2010 of the High i Court of Judicature at Madras in A.S. No. 990 of 2008. F " K.V. Viswanathan, Mary Mitzy, G.S. Chauhan, Shiv Prakash Pandey for the Appellants. S. Aravindh, V. Balachandran for the Respondent. )or The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G R.M. LODHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The short question for consideration in this appeal, by special leave, is whether the Single Judge of the Madras High H 68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. IA 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. 3. Brief facts leading to the present controversy are these. B 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 c 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 fixed the fair rent at Rs. 32,356/- per D month with effect from October 28, 1996. In September 1998, 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 tena
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.