Madras High Court
M/S. A.T.M. Constructions (P) Ltd vs M/S. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 19 September, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
2025:MHC:2246
C.S No.62 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment Reserved on 21.08.2025
Judgment Pronounced on 19.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
C.S No.62 of 2020
M/s. A.T.M. Constructions (P) Ltd.,
Represented by its Director,
Mr.Faiz Mohammed,
No.288, Lloyds Road, Royapettah,
Chennai-600 014. ... Plaintiff
vs.
1. M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
having its registered office at Bharath Bhavan,
Nos.4 and 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate,
Mumbai 400 028,
Represented by its Senior Manager-Legal (South)
No.1, Rangamohan Gardens,
115, Main Road, Anna Nagar,
Chennai-600 040.
2. M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Represented by its Territory Manager (Retail)
No.35, Vaidyanathan Street,
Tondiarpet, Chennai-600 081. ... Defendants
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am )
C.S No.62 of 2020
PRAYER: Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules
read with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C. And Section 2(1)(C)(vii) of the
Commercial Courts Act-2015 praying that this Court may be pleased
to pass a decree and judgment against the Defendants:
(a) directing the defendants to pay a total liquidated damages of
Rs.128,90,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum
from 01-01-2020 till the date of realization of the same by the plaintiff;
(b) directing the defendants to pay future damages of at the rate of
Rs.30,50,000/- per month from 01-01-2020 till the date of handing
over vacant possession of the suit schedule property by the
defendants to the plaintiff;
(c) Order cost of the suit; and
(d) Grant such other judgment and decree as this High Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render
justice.
For Plaintiff : M/s. R.Balachanderan
V.G.Guhan Murugan
V.Manimaran
C.Rishi
For Defendants : Mr. Krishna Srinivasan, Senior Advocate
for M/s. S.Ramasubramaniam and
Associates
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am )
C.S No.62 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has prayed for a direction to the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.128,90,00,000/- as liquidated damages with interest thereon at 12% per annum from 01.01.2020 till the date of realization. The plaintiff has also prayed for future damages at the rate of Rs.30,50,000/- per month from 01.01.2020 till the date of handing over vacant possession of the suit schedule property by the defendants to the plaintiff.
Pleadings, issues and evidence
2. In the plaint, the plaintiff states that it is the absolute owner of the property bearing Municipal Door No.282 (Old No.1/871), Mount Road, Teynampet, Chennai, ad measuring 4 grounds and 2330 sq.ft. and more fully described in the schedule to the plaint. It is further stated that the property was previously owned by T.Padmanabhan, T.Sethuraman and T.Gopinath. When the property 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 was owned by the above mentioned persons, Burma Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company of India Ltd. (Burma Shell) took the property on lease for a period of 20 years by lease agreement dated 08.01.1958, which was registered as document No.302 of 1958. The owners of the property had mortgaged the property as security for the loan availed of by them from M/s. Egmore Benefit Society. Since the loan was not repaid, the lender brought the property for sale by way of public auction. In the public auction, one Mrs. S. Bharwani purchased the property under sale deed dated 24.06.1978. The lessee requested the new owner to renew the lease for a further period of 20 years, but Mrs. Bharwani refused. In those circumstances, it is stated that the defendants invoked the statutory right under the Burma Shell (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1976 (the Burma Shell Act) and, by notice dated 17.11.1978, renewed the lease for a further period of 20 years with effect from 01.01.1978. The plaintiff further states that Mr. Altaf Ahmed, promoter of the plaintiff, purchased the schedule property under sale deed dated 03.01.1997, 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 registered as document No.509 of 1997 before the Sub Registrar, Chennai-Central and executed deed of declaration dated 04.04.2003 registered as document No.180 of 2003 to declare the plaintiff as the owner thereof.
3. Upon expiry of the 20 year period of renewal on 31.12.1997, the plaintiff issued multiple notices calling upon the defendants to vacate and hand over the vacant possession. Since the defendants failed to vacate the property, the plaintiff filed an ejectment suit in O.S.No.711 of 2006 before the III Assistant City Civil Judge at Chennai. An application under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 (the City Tenants Protection Act) was filed by the defendants in the said suit and such petition was dismissed. The matter was carried in appeal and revision. By judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010, the suit was decreed and an appeal was filed in respect thereof.
5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020
4. The plaintiff states that the continued occupation of the schedule property by the defendant from 01.01.1998 until the date of suit and thereafter is unlawful and amounts to trespass. On the basis that the plaintiff is entitled to at least 12% per annum on the market value of the property as rent, the claim for liquidated damages was computed at Rs.34,50,00,000/- and an interest claim of Rs.94,40,00,000/- was made, thereby aggregating to the claim of Rs.128,90,00,000/- for the period running from 01.01.1998 till 31.12.2019. Because the defendants had not vacated as on date of suit, a further sum of Rs.30,50,000/- per month was claimed towards future damages until the date that the defendants hand over vacant possession.
5. In the written statement, the defendants state that the cause of action for the present suit is identical to the cause of action in the ejectment suit and that, consequently, the suit is not maintainable. 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 The defendants also state that the plaintiff has failed to explain the delay and laches in filing the suit and, therefore, the suit is time barred. The defendants also state that the plaintiff refused to receive the rent when the defendants offered to pay rent. By asserting that the value of the suit property in Mount Road decreased on account of the boom in IT Parks and integrated satellite townships on the outskirts of Chennai, it is stated that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim 12% per annum on the market value of the suit property. Therefore, the liquidated damages claim of Rs.34,50,00,000/- and the interest claim of Rs.91,40,00,000/- was denied.
6. The Court framed the following issues on 28.09.2021:
(i) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(ii) Whether the cause of action in the present is identical to the cause of action in the suit O.S.No.711 of 2006?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of liquidated damages?7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for future damages from 01.01.2010 till handing over the vacant possession?
(v) What other relief?
7. The plaintiff examined Mr.A.Sivakumar, Civil Engineer, as PW1. In course of his examination-in-chief, five documents were exhibited as Exs.P1 to P5. PW1 was cross-examined by learned counsel for the defendants. The plaintiff examined Mr.Nisamudeen CMK as PW2. He was cross-examined by learned counsel for the defendants. Mr.Faiz Mohamed, Managing Director of the plaintiff, was examined as PW3. During his examination-in-chief, Exs.P6 to P18 were marked. He was cross-examined by learned counsel for the defendants. The defendants examined Mr.Arun Kandikonda, Territory Coordinator (Retail) of the second defendant, as DW1. During his examination-in-chief, 13 documents were exhibited as Exs.D1 to D13. He was cross-examined by learned counsel for the plaintiff. During his cross-examination, Exs.P19 and P20 were 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 marked.
Counsel and their contentions
8. Oral arguments on behalf of the plaintiff were advanced by Mr.R.Balachanderan, learned counsel. Arguments on behalf of the defendants were advanced by Mr.Krishna Srinivasan, learned senior counsel. Both parties filed written submissions and the defendants also filed additional written submissions.
9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff commenced his submissions by pointing out that the defendants were lessees of the plaintiff. He further submitted that after the suit was filed, the plaintiff obtained vacant possession of the schedule property on 20.06.2022. As regards the issues framed by this Court, learned counsel submitted that the second issue was settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by holding that the cause of action for this suit is distinct from the cause of action for the ejectment suit. He also pointed out that the defendants paid 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2 crore towards arrears of rent as per order dated 26.02.2021 in CMP No.3785 of 2021 in S.A.No.185 of 2021. He further submitted that rent at Rs.6 lakhs per month was paid from March, 2021 till 20.06.2022 as per order dated 26.02.2021 in CMP No.3758 of 2021 in S.A.No.185 of 2021. He filed memo of calculation stating that an aggregate sum of Rs.2,96,00,000/- was received from the defendants after the suit was filed in terms of the orders referred to above.
10. With the above preamble, learned counsel first dealt with the issue of limitation. By virtue of expiry of the lease by end of day on 31.12.1997, he contended that a statutory obligation was imposed on the defendants under Section 108(q) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (the TP Act) to vacate and hand over possession of the property. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd v. Ganesh Property (1998) 7 SCC 182. In view of the breach of statutory duty, 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 learned counsel contended that the defendants are liable in tort. He also submitted that a contractual obligation was imposed on the defendants to vacate and hand over possession upon expiry of the lease. By referring to paragraph 7 of the plaint, learned counsel contended that both breach of statutory and contractual obligation was pleaded by the plaintiff. By referring to the cross-examination of DW1, particularly question and answer Nos.24 to 28, learned counsel submitted that the witness admitted that the defendants committed breach of clause 3(iii) of the lease deed with effect from 01.01.1998 and that such breach ended only on 20.06.2022. Therefore, he contended that it is a continuing breach in terms of Section 22 of the Limitation Act and Article 55 of the schedule thereto.
11. As a consequence of the breach commencing on 01.01.1998 and ending on 20.06.2022, by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Sudera Reality Private Limtied, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1161, he contended that Article 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (the Limitation Act) would apply. He further contended that the judgment of this Court in the Secretary of State for India in Council v. Pemmaraju Venkayya Garu, 1916 SCC OnLine Mad 42 (Pemmaraju Venkayya Garu), is not applicable because the said judgment dealt with the failure of the lessor to put the lessee in possession and not the failure of the lessee to vacate upon expiry of the lease. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd., MANU/SC/1047/2004 (Atma Ram Properties), particularly paragraph 11 thereof, for the proposition that the tenant is liable to pay damages for use and occupation for the period subsequent to expiry of lease at the rate at which the landlord could let out the premises on being vacated by the tenant. By also relying on the judgment of Samruthi Cooperative Housing Society v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd.. (2022) 4 SCC 103 (Samruthi Cooperative), he contended that the nature of breach committed by the defendants is continuing and that the suit is not barred by limitation. 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020
12. As regards the quantum of damages, by referring to Exs.P1 to P4, the Advocate Commissioner's report, learned counsel submitted that the said report was exhibited through PW1. The engineer's report annexed thereto mentioned the land value as Rs.2,52,00,000/- per ground for the year 2007-08. Such land value was based both on the guideline value for the relevant period and sale deed dated 14.12.2007 bearing document No.1170 of 2007. He also submitted that the total extent of land being 4 grounds 2330 sq.ft. or 11930 sq.ft., at Rs.2,52,00,000/- per ground, the aggregate value was Rs.12,52,65,000/- for 2007-08. By referring to the corresponding value for 2009-10, he submitted that the aggregate value was Rs.9,54,40,000/-. As regards financial year 2012-13, he submitted that the aggregate value was Rs.12,36,66,380/-. According to learned counsel, in this manner, the land value for the relevant period was calculated both on the basis of the guideline value for such period and by taking into account a sale deed reflecting the market value 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 during the relevant period. By further referring to Ex.P20, learned counsel submitted that the defendants had also computed the fair market value of the property on the basis of the guideline value in the year 2019. By reckoning the guideline value of Rs.12,730/- per sq.ft., he submitted that the aggregate land value was computed at Rs.15,18,68,900/- and the monthly rental value at Rs.15,18,689/-. Because the defendants also computed the monthly rental value on the basis of the guideline value, learned counsel contended that the plaintiff is entitled to calculate the monthly rental value on the basis of the guideline value as corroborated by the sale deeds reflecting the market value.
13. By referring to Exs.D2 to D7, learned counsel submitted that they do not represent the market value of a property in Mount Road since they relate to properties in other locations. As regards interest on damages, learned counsel submitted that it was computed at 12% per annum with annual rests. In this regard, he placed reliance on the 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Corporation Bank v. D.S.Gowda and another, (1994) 5 SCC 213, particularly paragraph 20 thereof. He also referred to the proviso to Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) with regard to commercial disputes. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 93 of Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994 Suppl.(1) SCC 644 (Renusagar) in support of the contention that the plaintiff is entitled to compound interest. For the same proposition, reference was also made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and others, (2002) 1 SCC 367, at paragraph 58, and Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India and others, 2007 Vol 3 SCC 545, at paragraphs 8 and 9.
14. Mr.Krishna Srinivasan, learned senior counsel, responded to these contentions. At the outset, he submitted that a suit claim of Rs.128,90,00,000/- plus future damages of Rs.30,50,000/- has been made without providing necessary details. By referring to paragraph 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 12 of the plaint, learned senior counsel submitted that the plaintiff has failed to explain how the principal claim of Rs.34,50,00,000/- or the interest claim of Rs.94,40,00,000/- was computed. Although the application to reject the plaint was dismissed earlier, learned counsel referred to the Burmah Shell Act and Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act and contended that the application under Section 9 was dismissed solely on the ground that the defendants operated the retail fuel outlets through dealers and, therefore, were not in direct occupation and use of the property.
15. With this introduction, learned senior counsel first dealt with the issue relating to limitation. By referring to paragraph XXI of the plaint in the ejectment suit, he pointed out that the plaintiff herein stated that the defendants are in wrongful possession. He also pointed out that the plaintiff repeatedly referred to the defendants in the plaint as rank trespassers. Whether limitation is computed as per Article 51 or Article 87 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, he 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 submitted that the period of limitation would be three years from the date of receipt of unlawful profits by the defendants or three years from the date of trespass, respectively. In either case, he submitted that the suit is barred by limitation. In support of the contention that the breach occurred on 01.01.1998 and was not a continuing breach, he relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Pemmaraju Venkayya Garu and contended that the landlord's failure to put the tenant in possession was held therein to be not a continuing breach. By applying the said principle to this case, he contended further that the failure by the lessee to put the lessor in possession is not a continuing breach. By relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakthi Bhog Food Industries v. Central Bank India and Another, (2020) 17 SCC 260 (Sakthi Bhog), he contended that the Court discussed Article 113 of the Limitation Act and further held that interference is warranted where the cause of action is illusory. By referring to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Maharashtra Rajya Veej Vitaran Company and another v. Manoj Abarao Deshmukh and 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 another, 2018 (5) ALL MR 62 at paragraph 9, learned senior counsel submitted that the period of limitation for a suit for recovery of possession is 12 years from the date when the tenancy is determined. Even on that basis, he contends that the suit is barred by limitation because it was filed in 2020, whereas the lease expired on 31.12.1997. Although the right may subsist, learned senior counsel submitted that the remedy is barred under the law of limitation. As regards Article 55 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, learned senior counsel submitted that the limitation period should be computed from the date when the contract is broken and not from the date of expiry of the contract.
16. As regards the merits of the case, learned senior counsel submitted that PW1, Mr.A.Sivakumar, is not an approved valuer. After pointing out that the sale deeds filed by PW1 relate to the land value of the undivided share pertaining to small flats and that the market value has been computed by extrapolating the UDS value in 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 respect of a massive extent of 11930 sq.ft, he submitted that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of market value cannot be accepted.
17. With regard to the interest claim of the plaintiff, by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I.K. Merchants Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 692, particularly paragraphs 13 and 16 thereof, he submitted that Section 34 of the CPC becomes applicable from the date of suit till the date of realization when parties have not fixed the rate of interest in their contract. He also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the rate of interest should not be unreasonably high and without basis. By referring to the interest calculation at page 127 at Volume IV, he submitted that the interest claim is penal in nature and extortionate.
19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020
18. By way of rejoinder, Mr.Balachanderan referred to the report of the Advocate Commissioner, which was referred to in ejectment suit, to contend that the guideline value and the market value are the same. As regards the contention that the plaintiff failed to provide particulars of the suit claim, he submitted that only material facts are required to be pleaded and not the evidence in support thereof. By referring to the cross-examination of PW1, particularly question Nos.43 to 46 relating to the defendants computing fair rent on the basis of the guideline value and question and answer Nos.67 to 69, he submitted that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff with regard to fair rent is liable to be accepted particularly in view of the absence of any evidence to the contrary. He concluded his submissions by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Council for Enviro – Legal Action v. Union of India and Others, 2011 Vol 8 SCC 161 (Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action), particularly paragraphs 151 and 178 with regard to unjust enrichment and compound interest, respectively. 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 Discussion, analysis and conclusions:
Issue No.1:
19. The first issue to be examined is whether the suit is barred by limitation. It is common ground between the parties that the term of lease expired on 31.12.1997. The record shows that the plaint was presented on 27.01.2020 defectively and such defect was condoned on 05.02.2020. Because the suit was filed more than 20 years after the lease expired, the defendants contended that the suit is barred by limitation. This contention was countered by the plaintiff on the ground that the defendants committed a continuing wrong and a continuing breach. On that basis, it is stated that the suit was filed within time.
20. Based on these contentions, it becomes necessary to first examine the relevant provisions in the schedule to the Limitation Act. The defendants relied on Article 51, which deals with a claim for profits from an immovable property wrongfully received by the 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 defendant. This suit is not in respect of profits received by the defendants, but for damages for losses caused to the plaintiff by wrongful occupation in breach of contract and statute. The defendants also relied on Article 87 dealing with trespass. A trespass is an unauthorised entry into property. The defendants herein were put in possession lawfully and remained in possession lawfully until determination of the lease. Merely because the plaintiff labelled the defendants' continued occupation after the lease period as trespass, this suit cannot be construed as a suit for compensation for trespass. Having rejected the applicability of these Articles, I turn to Articles 55 and 113, which were relied on by the plaintiff and read as under:
Article 55:
Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run For compensation for the breach of any Three years When the contract is contract, express or implied not herein broken or (where specially provided for. there are successive breaches) when the breach in respect of which the suit is instituted occurs or (where the breach is continuing) when it 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run ceases.
Article 113:
Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run Any suit for which no period of limitation Three years When the right to is provided elsewhere in this Schedule. sue accrues.
21. Article 55 is the relevant Article to compute limitation in a suit for compensation for breach of contract. The lease deed dated 12.03.1958 (Ex.P-19) by and between T.Padmanaban, T.Sethuraman and T.Gopinath, who were the lessors, and Burmah Shell, which was the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and the lessee therein, provided for a term of 20 years. Clause 3 thereof dealt with the obligation of the lessee. In relevant part, it stipulated as follows:
“(III) To yield up the demised premises at the determination of the tenancy in good conditions reasonable use being excepted”.
Given that the lease period expired on 31.12.1997, an obligation was imposed on the defendants, as the successors-in-interest of the 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 original lessee, to hand over the suit schedule property to the current owner, i.e. the plaintiff, as prescribed therein. Therefore, a breach was committed by the defendants by failing to vacate and hand over possession of such property to the plaintiff. This leads to the question whether the said breach is a continuing breach or whether it occurred and ended on 01.01.1998.
22. In Samruddhi Cooperative, the Supreme Court was concerned with obligations imposed under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 [MOFA]. Under the MOFA and the agreement of sale, the respondent was under an obligation to obtain the occupancy certificate. Upon failure to do so, the respondent was sued for deficiency of service before the Consumer Forum. In that context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
“21. Based on these provisions, it is evident that there was an obligation on the respondent to provide the occupancy certificate and pay for the 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 relevant charges till the certificate has been provided. The respondent has time and again failed to provide the occupancy certificate to the appellant Society. For this reason, a complaint was instituted in 1998 by the appellant against the respondent. NCDRC on 20-8-2014 directed the respondent to obtain the certificate within a period of four months. Further, NCDRC also imposed a penalty for any delay in obtaining the occupancy certificate beyond these 4 months. Since 2014 till date, the respondent has failed to provide the occupancy certificate. Owing to the failure of the respondent to obtain the certificate, there has been a direct impact on the members of the appellant in terms of the payment of higher taxes and water charges to the municipal authority. This continuous failure to obtain an occupancy certificate is a breach of the obligations imposed on the respondent under the MOFA and amounts to a continuing wrong. The appellants, therefore, are entitled to damages arising out of this continuing wrong and their complaint is not barred by limitation.” 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020
23. In M Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, (2021) 1 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, in relevant part, as follows:
“343.... A continuing wrong arises where there is an obligation imposed by law, agreement or otherwise to continue to act or to desist from acting in a particular manner. The breach of such an obligation extends beyond a single completed act or omission. The breach is of a continuing nature, giving rise to a legal injury which assumes the nature of a continuing wrong....” The test formulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to determine whether a wrong is continuing in nature is to ask whether the obligation under law, agreement or otherwise to do or abstain from doing a particular act is a continuing obligation.
24. When applied to the facts to this case, as noticed earlier, clause 3(III) of the Lease Deed imposes an obligation on the lessee to yield or hand over the property to the lessor upon determination of 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 the lease. DW1 was questioned in this regard and the following questions and answers of DW1 have a bearing on this issue:
“ Q24: As per clause 3(iii) of the Ex.P19, what is the obligation of the defendant as lessee? A: To yield up the demised premises at the determination of the tenancy in good condition reasonable use being excepted.
Q25: Is it correct that on 31.12.1997, when the lease period expired, the lease got determined? A: Yes.
Q26: Is it correct that 01.01.1998 the defendant corporation is having the obligation to yield up the tenancy and vacate and handover the vacant possession of the demised premises to the landlord?
A: As per clause 3(iii) yes.
Q28: Can you tell the court when the breach of clause 3(iii) starts and ends?
A: The breach of clause 3(iii) starts from 1.01.1998 and the ends only on 20.06.2022 when we handed over possession to the plaintiff.” While a witness' interpretation of a contract or of the law on breach is 27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 not determinative, at a minimum, it is indicative of DW1's understanding of the nature of the obligation imposed by clause 3(III).
25. The obligation in clause 3(III) of Ex.P-19 may be compared and contrasted with a lessor's obligation to hand over possession to the lessee, which formed the factual matrix in Pemmaraju Venkayya Garu, a judgment relied on by learned senior counsel for the defendants. If the lessor commits breach of the obligation to hand over possession to the lessee as agreed upon, the lessee would be constrained to look for an alternative property that meets its requirements. Any additional cost involved in entering into another lease for a substantially similar property contemporaneously would be the measure of damages and such loss would not be time-
dependent. As regards the fact situation in this case, the lessee remained in possession in breach from 01.01.1998 to 20.06.2022. Consequently, the plaintiff could not put the property to use until it 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 received vacant possession. By way of illustration, if the defendants had handed over vacant possession on 31.12.1999, the breach would have ended on that date and even the claim for damages could not have extended beyond one year. Because the defendants handed over possession only on 20.06.2022, the obligation continued until then and, therefore, the period of the claim for damages was co-extensive. Hence, I interpret clause 3(III) as imposing a continuing obligation that did not end upon first non-compliance on 01.01.1998, but clearly continued until such obligation was belatedly fulfilled by handing over possession on 20.06.2022.
26. Similarly, Section 108(q) of the TP Act prescribes as follows:
“108. Rights and liabilities of lessor and lessee.— In the absence of a contract or local usage to the contrary, the lessor and the lessee of immoveable property, as against one another, respectively, possess the rights and are subject to the liabilities 29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 mentioned in the rules next following, or such of them as are applicable to the property leased:— “(q) on the determination of the lease, the lessee is bound to put the lessor into possession of the property.” The statutory obligation under Section 108(q) gets triggered on the expiry of the lease period. The obligation is to put the lessor in possession of the property. The agreed position is that the lease expired as of the end of 31.12.1997 and, therefore, the obligation to put the lessor in possession arose with effect from 01.01.1998. Both parties admit that the lessor was put in possession on 20.06.2022.
Until that date, in my view, the obligation, both under statute and contract, to hand over possession to the landlord continued. As a corollary, both the breach of contractual obligation and breach of statutory duty continued until 20.06.2022. Hence, Section 22 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes as under, becomes applicable:
“ Continuing breaches and torts – In the case of a continuing breach of contract or in the case of a 30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues.”
27. As regards breach of contract, if such breach is a continuing breach, under Article 55 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, the period of limitation runs from the date on which the continuing breach ceases. As discussed earlier, the suit was filed in January, 2020 while the breach continued. When viewed from that perspective, the suit in respect of breach of contract is within time under Article 55.
28. The suit has been framed not only as an action for breach of contract, but also as an action for the tort of wrongful occupation. None of the specific provisions in the schedule to the Limitation Act apply to a suit for tort. Consequently, Article 113 of the Schedule becomes applicable. Under Article 113, the period of limitation is required to be computed from the date when the right to sue accrued. 31 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 In Shakthi Bhog , the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the difference in language between Article 58 and Article 113. The Court noticed that the three year period begins to run under Article 58 from the date when the right to sue first accrues. By contrast, it was noticed that the three year period of limitation starts to run under Article 113 from the date when the right to sue accrues. At paragraph 19 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed the dictum of a co-ordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., (2004) 2 SCC 747, wherein after extracting Articles 58 and 113 of the Limitation Act, it was held as follows:
“21. A distinction furthermore, which is required to be noticed is that whereas in terms of Article 58 the period of three years is to be counted from the date when “the right to sue first accrues”, in terms of Article 113 thereof, the period of limitation would be counted from the date “when the right to sue accrues”. The distinction between Article 58 and Article 113 is, thus, apparent inasmuch as the right to sue 32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 may accrue to a suitor in a given case at different points of time and, thus, whereas in terms of Article 58 the period of limitation would be reckoned from the date on which the cause of action arose first, in the latter the period of limitation would be differently computed depending upon the last day when the cause of action therefor arose.”
29. When the above proposition is applied to the facts of this case, as discussed earlier, the cause of action first arose on 01.01.1998, but continued until 20.06.2022. Because the suit was filed in January, 2020, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation. Issue No.1 is disposed on these terms in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue No.2
30. As regards Issue No.2, both parties agreed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that the cause of action for this suit is not the same as the cause of action for the ejectment suit. Therefore, it has 33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 become unnecessary to decide Issue No.2.
Issue Nos.3 and 4:
31. Both these issues relate to the claim for liquidated damages, including future damages. At the outset, it should be recorded that the expression “liquidated' is a misnomer. A claim for liquidated damages lies only when parties have agreed on the amount payable (or the formula for computing the same) for breach in the relevant contract. On perusal of the lease deed, it is clear that neither a specific sum nor the formula for the computation of such specific sum was agreed upon and recorded in the lease deed. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff is for unliquidated damages. By recording that a claim cannot be rejected solely on the ground that a wrong label was given for such claim, I proceed further.
32. Being a claim for unliquidated damages, it was necessary for the plaintiff to adduce evidence with regard to breach, the 34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 consequence of breach and the extent of loss caused as a direct result thereof. By not vacating the property and handing over possession to the plaintiff, the defendants clearly committed breach of both the statutory obligation under Section 108(p) of the TP Act and the contractual obligation under Clause 3(III) of the Lease Deed. The next question to be considered is whether the plaintiff was put to a loss as a direct consequence of the breach. Self evidently, the consequence of the defendants continuing to occupy the property until 20.06.2022 was that the plaintiff was not in a position to either self-occupy, let out, sell or take any other measures in relation to such property. The only reasonable conclusion is that the plaintiff was put to loss. All that remains to be examined is the evidence relating to extent of loss.
33. In order to prove the quantum of loss, the plaintiff examined Mr.A.Sivakumar, Civil Engineer, as PW1. In his proof affidavit, he states that he is a qualified civil engineer having 25 years of practical experience in construction, estimation and valuation of 35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 land and buildings and that he is a registered engineer for the CMDA and the Greater Chennai Corporation. He further states that he inspected the suit schedule property on 14.09.2021. On that basis, he records that the total value of 11930 sq.ft. (4 grounds 2330 sq.ft.) of land) was Rs.12,52,65,000/- for the year 2007 (Rs.10,500 per sq. ft.); Rs.9,54,40,000/- for the year 2010 (Rs.8000 per sq. ft.); Rs.12,36,66,380/- for the year 2013 (Rs.10,366 per sq. ft.); and Rs.22,67,41,580/- for the year 2016 (Rs.19,006 per sq. ft.). In support of these conclusions, he annexed four reports. The said reports were exhibited as Exs.P1 to P4. In the report for the year 2007, he states that the guideline value was Rs.2,52,00,000/- for 2400 sq.ft. He further states that he confirmed this value by examining the certified copy of sale deed bearing document No.1170 of 2007 dated 14.12.2007. On the basis of the value of Rs.2,52,00,000/- per ground, the report computes the aggregate value for 11930 sq.ft. at Rs.12,52,65,000/-. Appended to the report is the relevant sale deed. The value has been worked out on the basis of details contained in Annexure-IA thereto. Exs.P2 to P4 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 adopted the same methodology, i.e. by correlating the guideline value with the market value as per one representative sale deed.
34. As may be noticed from the above discussion, proof of the guideline value and market value was provided in the above four reports only for the years 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016. The suit claim, however, relates to the period running from 01.01.1998 until the presentation of the suit in January, 2020. In order to substantiate the suit claim, the plaintiff therefore also relied upon auditor's report dated 10.09.2021 (Ex.P5). In the said report, Mr. CMK.Nisamudeen, Chartered Accountant, has specified the property value for each year beginning from 1997 and ending in 2019. The report values the property at Rs.6,70,44,000/- (Rs.5619 per sq. ft.) for the period beginning in 1998 and ending in the year 2006. For the year 2007, the property value is mentioned as Rs.12,12,00,000/- (Rs.10159 per sq. ft.). The same value is maintained for the period running from 2008 to 2012. For the period beginning from 2013 and ending 2019, the 37 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 auditor's report mentions the property value as Rs.22,80,00,000/- (Rs.19111 per sq.ft.). The report proceeds on the assumption that the extent of land is 12000 sq.ft. and interest at 12% per annum has been computed on the annual rental value. In this manner, the loss of rental income and loss of interest income is computed at Rs.35,11,91,520/- and 83,11,51,370/-, respectively, thereby aggregating to Rs.118,23,42,890/-.
35. When the proof affidavit of PW1 is compared with the report of the auditor and the proof affidavit of the said auditor, who was examined as PW2, several discrepancies are noticeable. While the property value as per Exs.P1 and P5 for the year 2007 is not very different, the property value for the year 2010 is Rs.9,54,40,000/-, as per PW1, whereas it is Rs.12,12,00,000/- as per PW2. Likewise, PW1 has specified the property value for the year 2013 as Rs.12,36,66,380/- , whereas PW2 has specified the value as Rs.22,80,00,000 for the said period. It is also noticeable that Ex.P5 does not contain any basis for 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 calculating the market value.
36. In course of cross-examination of PW1, the witness was asked questions relating to the nature of the property described in sale deed dated 14.12.2007. The relevant questions and answers are set out below:
“Q26: Is there any similarity between the property in the sale deed dated 14.12.2007 and the suit property?
A: There is no similarity.” Similar questions were put in respect of sale deed dated 29.12.2010, 17.05.2013 and 12.04.2016. As in the case of question No.26, PW1, admitted that there is no similarity between the property described in the above mentioned sale deeds and the suit schedule property.
37. In course of cross-examination of PW2, the following questions and answers are significant:
“Q20: Can you explain why the value of the property from serial No.1 to 9 has remained at Rs.6,70,44,000/- even though the guideline value was twice revised in this period?39
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 A: Client has provided the document only this periods.
Q21: Similarly the value of the property in serial No.16 to 22 has been shown as Rs.22,80,00,000/- when the guideline value was significantly revised during this period. Can you explain?
A: The Engineer Certificate and the guideline value were provided by the client it was only 2013.” Neither the report submitted by PW2 (Ex.P5) nor the above answers inspire any confidence. Therefore, I conclude that materiality and weight cannot be attached to Ex.P5.
38. The documents exhibited by the defendants (Exs.D2 to D7) do not relate to properties at Teynampet,Anna Salai and therefore are of no assistance. Hence, the value of the property during the relevant periods is required to be assessed on the basis of the evidence of PW1 and any other materials in this regard. The defendants had filed Application Nos.650 and 651 of 2020 with regard to the fair rent of 40 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 the suit schedule property. This document was exhibited by the plaintiff as Ex.P20. It relates to the year 2019. On the basis that the guideline value was Rs.12,730/- per sq.ft., the property value was computed as Rs.15,18,68,900/-; the annual rental value was computed at 12% thereof, i.e. a sum of Rs.1,82,24,268/-; and the monthly rental value of Rs.15,18,689/- was arrived at. By relying on this document, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendants also adopted the guideline value as the basis for fixing the annual and monthly rental values. There is merit in this contention.
39. As noticed from the cross-examination of PW1, he admitted that there is no similarity between the nature of the property forming the subject of sale deeds annexed to his reports and the suit schedule property. Each sale deed refers to a flat and PW1 has made the computation of property value on the basis of the land value indicated in Annexure-IA thereto. Therefore, learned senior counsel for the defendants submitted that such value cannot be extrapolated 41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 in respect of a large extent of vacant land. Given that the land and building values are shown separately in Annexure-IA, the said contention is not of much significance. It should also be borne in mind that PW1 correlated the guideline value with the market value, as per the relevant sale deeds, and provided his estimate of the property value.
40. Data relating to the guideline value is available on the website of the Registration Department and such data was also submitted by the plaintiff in volume VII. The guideline value details submitted in volume VII tally with the data available on the website of the Registration Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. Although learned senior counsel for the defendants objected thereto on the ground that the document had not been exhibited by relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Om Prakash Berlia v. Unit Trust of India and others, MANU/MH/0249/1983, I find that the said judgment deals with the proof of the contents of a return of 42 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 allotment filed by a company with the Registrar of Companies and not with a public document generated by a public authority like the Registration Department. The contention that there was no pleading cannot be accepted in light of the reference to the value under Section 47AA of the Indian Stamp Act. Being a public record, the guideline value specified on the website of the Registration Department is a reasonable basis on which to compute the market value of the property especially in view of the absence of any evidence from the defendants that the guideline value does not represent the market value during the relevant periods. Therefore, I proceed to correlate such data with the data provided by the plaintiff in arriving at the market value and the rental value. Reckoning the rental value at 12% of the market value is a recognised method of computation, which was also adopted by the defendants herein, and found statutory expression in the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960. The property is on Anna Salai, which is a prime location especially for commercial properties, and the size is 43 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 appropriate for commercial exploitation. Therefore, I proceed on the said basis.
41. The Registration Department website does not specify the guideline value for the period prior to 01.04.2002, but such values are specified for all subsequent periods. For the period running from 01.04.2002-31.03.2003, it is specified as Rs.4890 per sq. ft. If a 15% reduction were to be applied thereon per year for each preceding year up to the calendar year 1998, the value would fall within a range of about Rs.3100-4890 per sq. ft. By being circumspect, I adopt Rs.3500 per sq. ft. for the period 01.01.1998 to 31.03.2002. For all periods subsequent thereto, the guideline values of the Registration Department shall apply.
42. Therefore, the market value shall be computed in the following manner: Rs.3500 per sq. ft. or Rs.4,17,55,000 for 11930 sq. ft. from 01.01.1998-31.03.2002; Rs. 4890 per sq. ft. or Rs.5,83,37,700 for 44 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 11930 sq. ft. from 01.04.2002-31.03.2003; Rs. 5556 per sq. ft. or Rs.6,62,83,080 for 11930 sq. ft. from 01.04.2003-31.07.2007; Rs. 10500 per sq. ft. or Rs. 12,52,65,000 for 11930 sq. ft. from 01.08.2007- 31.03.2012; Rs. 19000 per square feet or Rs.22,66,70,000 for 11930 sq. ft. from 01.04.2012-08.06.2017; and Rs. 12730 per sq. ft. or Rs.15,18,68,900 for 11930 sq. ft. from 09.06.2017-20.06.2022.
43. If 12% of such property value were to be reckoned as the annual rental value, the loss on account of rent would be Rs. 50,10,600 for each full year from 01.01.1998 till 31.12.2001 and the loss per month would be Rs.4,17,550. Including the first three months of 2002, the aggregate loss for this period would be Rs. 2,12,95,050. For the following periods, the loss of rent would be as follows:
01.04.2002-31.03.2003: Rs. 70,00,524; 01.04.2003-31.07.2007:
Rs.3,18,15,874.40 + Rs.26,51,323.20 = Rs.3,44,67,197.60; 01.08.2007- 31.03.2012: Rs.62,63,250 + Rs.6,01,27,200 + Rs.37,57,950 = Rs.7,01,48,400; 01.04.2012-08.06.2017: Rs.13,60,02,000 + Rs.45,33,400 + 45 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 Rs.6,04,453.33 = Rs.14,11,39,853.33; 09.06.2017-20.06.2022:
Rs.9,11,21,340 + Rs.6,07,475.52 = Rs.9,17,28,815.52. The aggregate loss on account of rent would, therefore, be Rs. 36,57,79,840.45 for the period 01.01.1998-20.06.2022. In my view, this amount represents the appropriate measure of loss and is, therefore, liable to be paid as damages for breach of contract under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and for breach of statutory obligation, as held by the Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties. The sum of Rs.2,00,00,000 and the monthly rent of Rs.6,00,000 from 19.04.2021 for 16 months aggregating to Rs.96,00,000, which were paid by the defendants pursuant to orders dated 26.02.2021 in CMP No.3758 of 2021 in SA No. 185 of 2021 and order dated 19.04.2021 in A.Nos.650 and 651 of 2021 in this suit, are liable to be deducted therefrom to arrive at the net loss of Rs.33,61,79,840.45, which is rounded off as Rs.33,61,79,840.
Issues 3 and 4 are thus decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 Issue No.5
44. This issue pertains to whether any other relief should be granted. The plaintiff has claimed compound interest on the loss of rental income. Neither the lease deed nor any communication between the plaintiff and the defendants records any agreement on payment of compound interest. In the absence of contractual stipulation, compound interest cannot be charged by the plaintiff. Although learned counsel relied on the judgment in Indian Council for Enviro – Legal Action in support of the right to impose compound interest, the said judgment related to a public law action for pollution. Therefore, principles formulated in that context cannot be applied out of context in a private law dispute arising out of the lease deed. Renusagar was a judgment in which the Supreme Court concluded that the imposition of compound interest did not violate public policy and, consequently, did not justify refusing to enforce a foreign award. This judgment also does not advance the cause of the plaintiff. For these reasons, I conclude that the plaintiff is not entitled 47 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 to compound interest.
45. I had directed learned counsel for the plaintiff to compute simple interest at about three different rates. Pursuant to such direction, he has computed simple interest at 12%, 18% and 21%. As per the calculation, the principal loss of rental income has been computed at Rs.41,88,79,410/-. Interest thereon has been computed at 12% per annum in an aggregate sum of Rs.50,02,65,529/-. Considering the average rate of interest prevailing over this period, the rate of inflation and other relevant factors, I am not inclined to grant interest at the above rates and instead grant interest at 9% per annum, albeit on amounts computed in this judgment. Interest shall be payable for each month from the 6th of the following calendar month up to the date of realisation on the basis that, if the property had been let, rent would ordinarily have been received by the plaintiff for each month in the following calendar month (i.e. in arrears), typically on or before the 5th, in the absence of an agreement 48 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 to pay in advance. Because a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000 was paid while the suit was pending, such amount shall be apportioned pro rata towards the principal amount of damages for each relevant month as on the date of receipt and interest shall be payable for subsequent periods after giving credit thereto. Similarly, as regards the period of 16 months for which rent was paid at Rs.6,00,000 per month, such amount shall be adjusted towards loss of rent and interest computed only on the shortfall for the respective months.
46. As the substantially successful party, the plaintiff is also entitled to costs. The plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.1,29,27,550 as court fees on the suit claim. The plaintiff shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1 crore on this account and a further sum of Rs.10,00,000 towards lawyer's fees and expenses. Issue No.5 is disposed of on these terms.
47. In the result, the suit is decreed by directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.33,61,79,840 as damages for loss of 49 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 rental income from 01.01.1998 to 20.06.2022. The defendants are further directed to pay interest at 9% per annum on amounts due and payable as damages for loss of rental income for each month reckoned from the 6th of the next calendar month until realisation subject to the qualifications set out in this judgment. The defendants are also directed to pay an aggregate sum of Rs.1,10,00,000 towards costs to the plaintiff.
19.09.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kal
Plaintiff's witnesses:
P.W.1 – Mr.A.Sivakumar
P.W.2 – Mr.Nisamuideen CMK
P.W.3 – Mr.Faiz Mohamed
Defendant's witness:
D.W.1 – Arun Kandikonda
50
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am )
C.S No.62 of 2020
Documents exhibited by the plaintiff:
Exhibits Documents
Ex.P1 Report fixing market Value in year 2007-2008 dated
03.08.2020
Ex.P2 Report fixing Market Value in year 2010-2011 dated
03.08.2020
Ex.P3 Report fixing Market Value in year 2013 dated
03.08.2020
Ex.P4 Report fixing Market Value in year 2016 dated
14.09.2021
Ex.P5 Auditor's Report dated 10.09.2021
Ex.P6 Certificate of Incorporation
Ex.P7 Articles of Association
Ex.P8 Memorandum of Association
Ex.P9 Authorization Resolution dated 31.12.2019
Ex.P10 Plaint in O.S. No. 711 of 2006 dated 02.01.2006
Ex.P11 Written Statement in O.S. No. 711 of 2006 dated
16.03.2006
Ex.P12 Grounds in A.S. No. 361 of 2010 dated 03.08.2010
Ex.P13 Judgment in O.S.No.711of 2006 dated 30.04.2010
Ex.P14 Order in L.A. No. 6009 of 2006 in O.S. No. 711 of 2006
dated 27.11.2009
Ex.P15 Order in C.M.A. No. 20 of 2010 dated 29.04.2010
Ex.P16 Certified Copy of True Copy the MGT dated 07.03.2023
51
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am )
C.S No.62 of 2020
Exhibits Documents
Ex.P17 Certified Copy of True Copy the Form 32 dated
07.03.2023
Ex.P18 Order in C.R.P. No. 610 of 2011 dated 09.01.2012
Ex.P19 Lease Deed Document Bearing No.302 of 1958 dated
12.03.1958
Ex.P20 Application to Rejection of Plaint, Counter Affidavit in Appl.Nos.650, 651 of 2020, Typed set of Documents filed on behalf of Respondent and Valuation of fair rent on date as per order on 14.07.2020 dated 24.07.2020 Documents exhibited by the Defendants:
Exhibits Documents
Ex.D1 Authorization Letter marked through DW-1 Mr. Arun
Kandikonda dated 07.11.2023
Ex.D2 Lease Deed - Registered Document Bearing No.1866 of
2021 dated 29.06.2021
Ex.D3 Lease Deed - Registered Document Bearing No.2190 of
2013 dated 15.07.2013
Ex.D4 Lease Deed - Registered Bearing No.663 of 2018 dated
07.05.2018
Ex.P5 Auditor's Report dated 10.09.2021 Lease Deed -
Registered Bearing No.624 of 2003 dated 27.06.2003 Ex.D6 Lease Deed - Registered Bearing No.941 of 2004 dated 01.04.2004 Ex.D7 Lease Deed - Registered Bearing No.1087 of 2001 dated 23.04.2001 52 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 Exhibits Documents Ex.D8 The Hon'ble Supreme Court Order in Misc.A(Diary) No.30165 of 2021 in CA.No.6726 of 2021 dated 15.07.2022 Ex.D9 Authorization Resolution dated 31.12.2019 Report of Justice Chitra Venkatraman submitted to The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Misc.A(Diary) No.30165 of 2021 in CA.No.6726 of 2021 dated 14.11.2022 Ex.D10 The Hon'ble Supreme Court Order in Misc.A(Diary) No.30165 of 2021 in CA.No.6726 of 2021 dated 24.02.2023 Ex.D11 The Hon'ble Supreme Court Order in Misc.A(Diary) No.30165 of 2021 in CA.No.6726 of 2021 dated 20.03.2023 Ex.D12 Grounds in A.S. No. 361 of 2010 dated 03.08.2010 The Hon'ble Supreme Court Order in Misc.A(Diary) No.30165 of 2021 in CA.No.6726 of 2021 dated 02.05.2023 Ex.D13 Affidavit of Dr. Arjun A Raja in W.P.No.16225 of 2014 dated 16.06.2014 19.09.2025 kal 53 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am ) C.S No.62 of 2020 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.
kal Pre-delivery judgment made in C.S No.602 of 2007 19.09.2025 54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/09/2025 11:33:05 am )