Madras High Court
J.R.Venkatapathy … vs The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment on 29 July, 2025
A.S.No.38 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 29.07.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
A.S.No.38 of 2021
J.R.Venkatapathy … Appellant /Defendant
V.
The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment,
Corporation Limited,
By its Branch Manager,
Peenagram Road,
Dharmapuri- 636 702 … Respondent /Plaintiff
Prayer : This First Appeal is filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1
of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and decree of the
Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri in O.S.No.179 of 2018 dated 18.06.2020
is contrary to law, manifestly erroneous and its findings is wholly improper,
irregular, perfunctory and without basis and in any event liable to be set aside.
For Appellant : M/s.V.Srimathi
For Respondent : Mr.K.Magesh
1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm )
A.S.No.38 of 2021
JUDGMENT
Unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred the appeal. The suit is filed by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited/plaintiff directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.16,14,240/- for arrears of rent for suit premises with interest at 18% per annum. The trial Court decreed the suit that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount alone after deducting the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the suit amount together with 9% interest from the date of suit, till decree. After that, 6% interest from the date of decree, till the date of realisation.
2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their litigative status before the trial Court.
3. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:
The suit Industrial shed belongs to the plaintiff. The defendant is tenant of the suit shed under the plaintiff from 12.09.2012, by a mutual rental agreement deed between them. According to the rental agreement, the defendant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month as rent to the suit premises and paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as rent advance, the rent period fixed 2/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm ) A.S.No.38 of 2021 is only ll months and both were agreed to extend the rent period by a fresh rent agreement after the lease period of 11 months. The defendant has paid the rent upto the month of June 2013 and after that the defendant willfully defaulted the payment of rent. After the month of June 2013, the defendant neither paid the rent nor he renewed the lease, which ended on 12.08.2013. So on 13.11.2013, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice, but even after acknowledging the notice, the defendant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the building. The rent was modified from Rs. 20,000/- per month to at Rs. 23,000/- per month from October 2015.
3(i). The plaintiff has sent a notice on 11.12.2013 and by which, terminated the lease and directed the defendant to pay the arrears of rent and to vacate the suit shed, but the defendant refused to receive the notice. So, on 25.12.2013 notice was served in person through its staff and after receipt of the notice, the defendant promised to vacate the premises on or before 07.07.2014.
But did not kept his promise and did not vacate the premises and did not pay the arrears of rent. While so, the defendant by his letter dated NIL, alleged that he has spent a sum of Rs.6 lakhs for repairing and cleaning the premises. For that on 11.04.2014, the plaintiff has suitably issued reply notice. But even after that he did not pay the rent nor is he vacated the premises. 3/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm ) A.S.No.38 of 2021 3(ii). On 23.12.2014, the plaintiff has caused a legal notice and demanded the arrears of rent and to vacate the property. For that the defendant by his letter dated 29.12.2014, requested the plaintiff time till 20.01.2015 for vacating the suit premises and to settle the arrears of rent, for that the defendant states that he was in bed ridden and suffering from serious illness, so his request was allowed by the plaintiff, granted time upto 15.02.2015 to vacate the shed and to re-delivery of the shed. But all of a sudden, the defendant has placed a Board at the wall of the suit shed and welcome the third parties that the shed will be To-let, that his act is illegal. So the plaintiff lodged a police complaint against the defendant for his fraudulent act.
3(iii). At police station also he has taken only two days time to vacate the building and to settle the arrears of rent. But in a cunning way, to escape from police action, the defendant has filed a suit for injunction in O.S. No. 21/2015 on the file of District Munsif, Krishnagiri for not to evict him in unlawful way. So the plaintiff has filed RCOP. No. 52/2017 for eviction and the same is pending and the suit in O.S. No.21/2015 was decreed on 10.03.2017. At last on 26.12.2016 also the plaintiff has issued a legal notice, demanding arrears of rent from July 2013 to December 2016 Plus service Tax in 4/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm ) A.S.No.38 of 2021 total Rs.8,40,000 + Rs. 1,26,000 = Rs. 9,66,000/-, but even after acknowledging the notice, the defendant has failed to pay the arrears of rent. The rent is Rs. 20,000/- per month from July 2013 to September 2015 and Rs.23,000/- from October 2015 to till date, the rent is arrears from defendant. Now as on date i.e. from July 2013 to September 2018, the total arrears of rent Ra:13,68,000/-, plus service Tax of Rs. 2,46,240/-, in total Rs. 16,14,240/- is liable to be paid by the defendant. Hence this suit.
4. The case of the defendant is as follows:
According to the rent agreement, the defendant has agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month as rent to the suit premises and paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as rent advance, the rent period fixed is only 11 months and both were agreed to extend the rent period by a fresh rent agreement after the lease period of 11 months, the defendant paid rent upto the month of June 2013. The suit shed was kept ideal for a long period which was in dilapidated condition. The defendant was permitted to renovate the suit shed and he spent a sum Rs.10,00,000/- and he paid the rent regularly. He also sent a letter dated 29.06.2013 for renewal of lease and also demanded to provide electricity connection. In spite of that, the plaintiff failed to obtain electricity service connection to the suit shed and that the defendant is unable to do his business 5/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm ) A.S.No.38 of 2021 in the suit premises.
4(ii). On the contrary, the plaintiff issued a letter dated 13.11.2013 to the defendant demanding the rent for the month of July 2013 to October 2013. Pursuant to which, the defendant sent so many letters to the plaintiff to provide the electricity service connection to the schedule premises. Despite receiving the letters, the plaintiff wrongly sent a letter dated 06.01.2015 to the defendant for handing over the possession of the schedule premises on 21.01.2015 without fail. But without providing the fundamental necessity for the schedule premises i.e. service connection the plaintiff illegally tried to evict the defendant even contra to the law. Since the plaintiff trying to dispossess the defendant from the suit shed, the defendant has filed a suit in O.S.No.21 of 2015 and, the same was decreed. After passing of the decree, the plaintiff filed the suit with an ulterior motive, when the defendant has not doing any business. Since the defendant spent more than Rs. 10,00,000/- and the defendant unable to get service connection to do business and that there is a bonafide reason for the defendant for not making payment to the plaintiff. In fact, the defendant is prepared to pay rent if the plaintiff waived the rent for the period of renovation of the building and providing service connection to the suit shed. The defendant sent several representations to the plaintiff to make adjustment 6/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm ) A.S.No.38 of 2021 of the amount incurred by the defendant towards rent for the suit property. But, the plaintiff without considering the representation of the defendant filed the suit for eviction and filed this suit for recovery of money suppressing the material facts. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues :-
(i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for?
(ii). Whether it is true that the defendant has renovated the suit property by sending Ten Lakhs Rupees with the permission of the plaintiff?
(iii). to what other relief the plaintiff is entitled for?
6. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, one Mr.Sagadevan was examined as P.W.1 and Exs. A1 to A9 were marked. On the side of the defendant, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and one Mr.Murugesan was examined as D.W.2 and Ex.B1 to B7 were marked.
7. The findings of the Trial Court:
As per the rental agreement, the lessee shall bear the expenses towards 7/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm ) A.S.No.38 of 2021 electrical installation, E.B. Deposit etc., and he shall bear expenses towards cleaning and renovation work. Ex.A1-letter shows that the defendant undertakes to repair the shed by himself, but he requested the plaintiff to reduce the rent from Rs.5/- per sq.ft to Rs.4/- per sq.feet and he further requested two months time to carryout repair work in the suit premises. In the rental agreement itself, 18 days time was granted to renovate the suit premises as well as for getting E.B. connection to the suit premises by the defendant. Hence, the claim of the defendant to deduct the amount which he spent for the renovation work from the pending rent is not at all acceptable one. In the rental agreement itself, he accepted to bear the renovation work expenses along with electricity connection expenses. So, in contra to the terms of rental agreement, he cannot claim the expenses spent by him for the repair works. The plaintiff has filed RCOP for eviction and it was still pending. It was accepted by the defendant that he has not paid rent from July 2013 to September 2018 and till he has occupied the suit premises. So, the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim and the defendant has not proved that he has spent Rs.10,00,000/- for repair works.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant submitted that the defendant herein had been offered shed bearing number A4 in Krishnagiri SIDCO industrial estate for the sum of Rs. 20,000/- for period of 11 8/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm ) A.S.No.38 of 2021 months. On 12.09.2012, the lessor handed over the possession of the demised premises to the lessee also on the said date, the lessor had agreed to the request of the lessee to collect the rent only from 01.10.2012 onwards in order to enable the lessee to get power connection, cleaning and renovation and also to get water. However, the lessee was not able to commence the operation due to the fact that no electricity supply was available in the shed. The defendant paid rents from 01.10.2012 till 30.06.2013 for the suit shed premises. Further, the defendant paid the rent upto the month of June 2013 and he also applied for renewal on of lease agreement on 29.06.2013. As the suit property was kept idle for a long period, it was in a dilapidated condition. The plaintiff was asked to renovate the suit shed for obtaining the amenities. The learned counsel further would submit that the defendant had spent more than Rs. 10,00,000/- and ExB1-receipt reveals the renovation of the shed with all amenities. Despite making several demands to the plaintiff to obtain electricity connection for the premises, the plaintiff has failed to meet the basic demand. The defendant was unable to carry on his business in the suit premises. If the plaintiff undertaking had complied and provided all amenities to the defendant, he could have carried on the business.
8(ii). It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the 9/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm ) A.S.No.38 of 2021 appellant/defendant that in general parlance, essential utilities refer to "water, gas and electricity". The essential utilities have been given a specific definition under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act and the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act which includes "supply of water, electricity, lights in passages and staircases, lifts and conservancy or sanitary service" and "supply of water, electricity, passages, staircases, light, lavatories, lifts and conservancy or sanitary service" respectively. To strengthen her contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip Shah, the High Court of Delhi in Sudharshan Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) to show that "electricity is an essential service, of which a person cannot be deprived without cogent, lawful reason". Another judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Noble Plastic Industry v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd.7 (Noble Plastic) to show that
(i) electricity and water are essential amenities of life; (in) any illegal interference in the supply of those amenities would seriously affect the life and liberty of a person; and (iii) as long as a tenant is in occupation of the premises and the relationship of landlord and tenant continues and if there are no arrears of electricity charges. it is not permissible for the landlord to disconnect the electricity supply.
10/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm ) A.S.No.38 of 2021
9. Yet another judgment of this Court in the case of Cosmo Towers Owners' Assn. v. Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Boards, to show that "disconnection of water supply is a deprivation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which includes right to livelihood and the same consists of water supply to sustain such livelihood".
10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the defendant has placed a Board at the wall of the suit shed and welcome the third parties that the shed will be To-let, that his act is illegal. So the plaintiff lodged a police complaint against the defendant for his fraudulent act. At police station also he has taken only two days time to vacate the building and to settle the arrears of rent. But in a cunning way, to escape from police action, the defendant has filed a suit for injunction in O.S. No. 21/2015 on the file of District Munsif, Krishnagiri for not to evict him in unlawful way. So the plaintiff has filed RCOP. No. 52 of 2017 for eviction and the same is pending. Even after issuance of several legal notice demanding arrears of rent, the defendant even after acknowledged the notice, failed to pay the arrears of rent.
11/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm ) A.S.No.38 of 2021
11. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the available records.
12. The Points for determination arises in this appeal is that
(i)Whether the defendant was permitted to renovate the suit shed?
(ii)Whether the defendant had spent more than Rs.10 lakh for renovation of the suit shed ?
(iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of arrears of rent after deducting an advance amount?
13. It is an admitted fact that the defendant is the tenant of the suit industrial shed bearing No.A4, Krishnagiri SIDCO Industrial Estate under the plaintiff from 12.09.2012 for a period of 11 months, under Ex.A2. Ex.A2 rental agreement recitals, clearly shows that on 12.09.2012, the plaintiff handed over the possession of the suit shed. The defendant has also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as rent and paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as an advance, the rent period fixed is 11 months. The lease period 11 months from 12.09.2012 to August 2013. The defendant has paid the rent upto the 12/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm ) A.S.No.38 of 2021 month of June 2013, thereafter, the defendant neither paid the rent nor renewed the lease.
14. It is the specific case of the defendant is that the suit shed was kept idle for long period and it was dilapidated condition. The defendant was permitted to renovate the suit shed, by spending more than Rs.1,00,000/-. The defendant sent a letter dated 29.06.2013 for renewal of lease and also demanded to provide electricity service connection. On the contrary, the plaintiff issued a letter dated 13.11.2013, demanding the rent to the month of July 2013 to October 2013. Without providing electricity service connection, the plaintiff illegally tried to evict the defendant even contra to the law.
15. A perusal of Ex.A2 rental agreement dated 12.09.2012, shows that, as per terms, the lessee shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month, along with service tax consist of Rs.1,542.80 per square meter and there will be increase of rent by 15% once in 3 years. The lessee shall bear the expenses towards electrical installation, EB deposit etc., and also shall bear expenses towards cleaning and renovation work. It is clear that as per rental agreement in Ex.A2, the expenses towards electrical installation, E.B. deposit etc, cleaning and 13/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm ) A.S.No.38 of 2021 renovation work expenses should bear by the defendant. As per Ex.A1, requisition letter given by the defendant would also shows that the defendant himself undertakes to repair the suit shed. As per Ex.A1-request letter dated 05.07.2012, the defendant states that he came to know about the suit shed in the newspaper advertisement and he is willing to take the suit shed on rental basis. It also states that the defendant is willing to pay Rs.4/- per square feet and ready to pay five months rent as an advance and also requested two months time to carry out repair work in the suit shed after entering into the rental agreement. It is pertinent to mention that in Ex.A2, rental agreement says that 18 days time granted to renovate the suit shed, as well as for getting E.B. connection by the defendant.
16. A perusal of Ex.A2-Rent Agreement, in terms in S.No.14, wherein it has been mentioned that "the lessee shall not let, sub-let, assign or transfer the interest in the leased premises or any part thereof, without the written or expressed consent of the lessor". In S.No.7, it has been mentioned that "the lessee shall obtained prior written permission from the lessor by making any alteration at their own costs as may be required to use the demised premises for the purpose of running cartoons and ready-made garment unit". Further in the agreement in S.No.9, it has been mentioned that "the lessee shall bear the 14/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm ) A.S.No.38 of 2021 expenses towards electrical installation, EB Deposit etc.",
17. A perusal of Ex.A5-letter Nil dated addressed by the defendant to the plaintiff, wherein, it has been mentioned that they have incurred an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards repair and renewal of the entire damaged items mentioned therein. It is also mentioned that the shed was open during the time of inventory taken only on 01.10.2012, it is also mentioned that the suit shed was closed for the past 20 years. Therefore, the Branch Manager, Dharmapuri District, orally informed him to take action to replace the damaged items and directed to furnish the bills on the expenditure incurred by him and the same will be considered for reimbursement.
18. DW1 in his cross examination, categorically admitted that in Ex.A2- Rent agreement, the suit shed is mentioned as demised premises. He also admitted that time has been granted to renovate the suit shed as wells for getting EB connection. At the time of subscribing his signature in Ex.A2, he did not read the contents and belatedly came to know about the contents mentioned in Ex.A2.
19. DW2 who is a mason in his cross examination deposed that he does 15/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm ) A.S.No.38 of 2021 not know the extent of the suit shed and also not known about the extent of the land. He also deposed that there is no written contract entered between the defendant and DW2 and oral agreement alone entered and the defendant incurred a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to renovate the suit schedule. He does not know whether the expenditure bills borne by the defendant had been placed before this Court or not.
20. Ex.B1 is the copies of seven receipts, which shows that the expenses incurred by the defendant. The defendant did not file the original bill and not chosen to examine the persons, who have issued the Ex.B1 bills as a witness before the trial Court.
21. When the defendant entered into a rental agreement under Ex.A2 and in the agreement itself, he accepted to bear the renovation work expenses along with the electricity service connection. He very well knows the physical condition of the suit shed and there is no electricity connection in the suit shed. Contra to the written terms of the rental agreement, the defendant cannot claim the expenses spent by him for the repair works by relying the oral evidence of DW2 along with Ex.B1 receipts are not sufficient to prove his case. The suit shed belongs to the Government namely Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment 16/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm ) A.S.No.38 of 2021 Corporation Ltd. and by accepting the condition of the suit shed in the rental agreement and the defendant himself made a request under Ex.A1 and he had signed in the rental agreement and occupied the suit shed.
22. The plaintiff has also chosen to file the Rent Control Original Petition for eviction and it is also pending. It is the accepted case of the defendant that he has not paid rent from July 2013 to September 2018 and till he has occupied the suit premises. Instead, he contented that the suit shed was in a dilapidated condition and no electricity connection and water connection, so that, the defendant was not in a position to commence his business. Therefore, he was unable to pay the rent. The above contention is not acceptable one. The plaintiff has categorically proved that the defendant has not paid the rent from the month of July 2013 onwards, but the defendant has failed to establish the factum, that affect getting necessary written permission from the plaintiff, he had spent a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for repair works. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree of the Court below. The points are answered accordingly.
23. In the result, the first appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree in O.S.No.179 of 2018 dated 18.06.2020 passed by the learned 17/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm ) A.S.No.38 of 2021 Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri is hereby confirmed. No costs.
29.07.2025 msv Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order: Non-speaking order Neutral citation : Yes/No To The Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
18/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm ) A.S.No.38 of 2021 msv A.S.No.38 of 2021 29.07.2025 19/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/08/2025 07:08:43 pm )