Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(v) to (viii)

(ix) any notice to be given by the lessor to the lessee under this lease shall be deemed to have been duly given if served at the lessee s office in Chennai, any notice to be given by the lessee to the lessor shall be deemed to have been duly given if dispatched by registered post to the last known address of the lessor.

4.5. The plaintiff, by a letter dated 2.4.1997, requested the defendant

- Corporation for the rent due for the months February and March, 1997, alleging that the defendant - Corporation did not remit the rent as per the terms of the lease agreement dated 27.1.1997. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued legal notice on 2.7.1997 and determined the lease as ceased to exist and called upon the defendant - Corporation to handover possession to the plaintiff, failing which, rendering the defendant - Corporation liable to pay damages for wrongful usage and occupation at Rs.1000/- per day from 3.6.1997. Followed by the said legal notice dated 2.7.1997, the plaintiff filed the said suit on 9.7.1997 for the relief as prayed for.

5.2. If the date of taking possession, viz., 24.3.1997 or the date of shifting the bunk, viz., 26.3.1997, are taken as relevant dates for the rent payable by the defendant - Corporation, the rent for the period till 30.3.1997 falls due only by 10.4.1997 and therefore, there is no cause of action on 2.4.1997, when the plaintiff is said to have made a request for the arrears of rent for the months February and March, 1997.

5.3. Without prejudice to the above contentions, assuming the defendant Corporation is liable to pay the rent for the months February and March, 1997, immediately on receipt of the demand by the legal notice dated 2.7.1997, the defendant - Corporation sent a cheque dated 4.7.1997 for a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards rent for the period February to July, 1997, on 7.7.1997, by registered post, in compliance of clause 3(iv) of the lease agreement dated 27.1.1997, to show their bona fide, but the same was returned with an endorsement NOT FOUND IN MY DELIVERY TIME RETURNED TO SENDER; and also replied on 26.7.1997 that the claim of the plaintiff under the legal notice dated 2.7.1997 could not be complied with as the same is not bona fide. The defendant Corporation resisted the suit accordingly.

(v)Whether the suit is properly valued and the court fee paid is correct?

7. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked the following relevant documents on his behalf:

Ex.P1 Lease agreement dated 27.1.1997.

Ex.P2 Letter dated 2.4.1997 demanding the rent.

Ex.P3 Letter dated 19.2.1997 to show that the original lease deed was also entrusted to the defendant - Corporation.

Ex.P4 Legal notice issued by the plaintiff dated 2.7.1997 Ex.P5 Reply of the defendant - Corporation dated 26.7.1997

Ex.D4 Lease agreement dated 27.1.1997.

9. The learned judge appreciating both oral and documentary evidence adduced by either side, by his judgment and decree dated 4.4.2000, even though held that this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the above suit and that the valuation of the suit and the court fee paid by the plaintiff are correct, finding that the defendant - Corporation had sent the entire amount due to the plaintiff, by way of cheque on 7.7.1997, immediately after receipt of the legal notice dated 2.7.1997 from the plaintiff, and that the defendant Corporation is entitled for the benefit under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, answered the issues in favour of the defendant Corporation, refused to grant the relief as prayed for, and dismissed the suit. Hence the above appeal.