Case: THE PERIYAR DISTRICT CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE WHOLESALE STORES LTD. NO. AA467 Vs. B. BALAGOPAL (DIED) THROUGH LRS. &amp; ORS

The respondents herein were the plaintiffs in the said suit while the appellant herein was the defendant. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties will be referred to in the rank assigned to them before the Trial Court below3. The undisputed position in the present case is that the plaintiff is the owner of the premises in question wherein the defendant was inducted as the tenant under the lease agreement dated 09.07.1980. The said lease was for a period of three years and the monthly rental was fixed at Rs.6,500/-. The advance of Rs.20,000/- was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Subsequently the plaintiff filed the civil suit in O.S.No.95/1990 seeking eviction of the defendant and vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court through its judgment and decree dated 08.02.1995 directed the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises and the compensation of Rs.15,000/- was ordered for the period of three years prior to filing the suit till date of possession4. The defendant, claiming to be aggrieved filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code before the High Court of Madras in Appeal Suit No.714/1995. In the said appeal it was ultimately agreed that the defendant would vacate the premises in question after six months and for the said period the monthly compensation of Rs.50,000/- would be paid to the plaintiff. The defendant has accordingly vacated the premises during November 2003. In the earlier proceedings since liberty was reserved to be plaintiff to initiate an appropriate proceeding for damages, the plaintiffs have initiated the present round of litigation5. In that regard the suit in O.S.No.37/2007 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking damages at the rate of Rs.89,000/- per month. The Trial Court having adverted to the rival contentions has decreed the suit through its judgment dated 18.08.2008. The Trial Court has awarded the monthly compensation of Rs.89,000/- for the periods 14.07.2000 to 14.07.2003. Thus, in all, the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.26,98,367/-. Further sum of Rs.3,56,000/- was ordered towards future loss and cost of the suit. The defendant claiming to be aggrieved by the same preferred the appeal before the High Court in A.S.No.811/2009 which was dismissed through the judgment dated 14.11.2017. It is in that light the defendant claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in this appeal.

Reasoning: 7. The factual position relating to the tenancy, the earlier round of litigation and the defendant having thereafter vacated the premises during November 2003, there is no serious dispute12. Having taken note of the manner of consideration made by the Trial Court as also the High Court in the earlier round of litigation relating to eviction and the present round of litigation relating to damages, an appropriate consideration is necessary in the background of the contentions put forth by the learned senior advocate for the defendant and the learned advocate for the plaintiffs and in that light keeping in view the status of the parties and their conduct. As noticed the Trial Court while decreeing the suit through its judgment dated 18.08.2008 has made reference to the Rent Control Act, kept in mind the provisions contained therein and has thereafter arrived at a conclusion. The High Court on re-appreciating the same has endorsed the view. On that aspect further consideration would not be necessary13. However, what is to be taken note in the present facts is that, though the ejectment suit was decreed on 08.02.1995 and the appeal had been immediately filed by the defendant in A.S.No.714/1995, during the pendency of the appeal, in view of an application filed by the plaintiff, an understanding was reached that the defendant agreed to vacate the premises within six months. While granting the said period of six months to vacate, the High Court, for the said period had also fixed the compensation at the sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. It is no doubt true that the High Court had also reserved the liberty to the plaintiff to seek for a higher amount by filing a separate suit, if need be. In a normal circumstance if the tenant had not voluntarily vacated, a claim for such damages would be very much justified. Even otherwise since such right had been reserved, the plaintiff no doubt was entitled to institute the suit14. In the present facts, during the course of consideration of this appeal what appealed to this Court is also that the appellant is a District Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Stores and the premises had been taken on rent for its activity and it is not a business activity in the strict sense of the term but is co-operative activity for the benefit of members who are shareholders. In the process of eviction when time of six months was granted to vacate and rent had been fixed at Rs.50,000/- per month the same was also paid by them without default. In such circumstance it was suggested by this Court that the parties arrive at an amicable settlement so that either of them are not entirely prejudiced and the equities could be balanced. The learned senior counsel for the defendant was receptive to the said suggestion and had indicated that in addition to the sum of Rs.10 lakhs paid towards the decretal amount, a reasonable amount suggested by this Court would be paid and the matter would be brought to a close. The learned counsel for the plaintiff however did not put forth any suggestion for amicable settlement but insisted on payment of the entire amount under the decree15. In that background having taken into consideration all materials and the special circumstance noted above, we are of the opinion that a modification of the judgment and decree is required to be made in the interest of justice so as to limit the decretal amount to a reasonable quantum. In that regard reference has already been made to the fact that the defendant is a Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores and has already vacated after paying the enhanced amount ordered by the High Court. If substantial unplanned expenditure is heaped on them for the retrospective period it would be put in a financially precarious position. At the same time for having used the premises and considering the fact that the premises was taken in the year 1980 and the enhancement in such cases will be gradual, the drastic application of the prevailing rent though not justified in the present facts and circumstance, the plaintiffs would be entitled to a reasonable compensation. In such event when the High Court at first instance in A.S.No.714/1995 had fixed the damages at Rs.50,000/- per month for the period of six months after which the defendant was to vacate, it would be justified if the said amount of Rs.50,000/- per month is made applicable even to the earlier period of three years which was taken into consideration by the Trial Court. In our opinion such order will meet the ends of justice16. Therefore, the damages for the periods 14.07.2000 to 14.07.2003 if calculated at the rate of Rs.50,000 per month would work out to Rs.18 lakhs in all. As noted, the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs towards the decretal amount on 27.04.2010. Further for the overlapping period between March to July 2003 which was fixed by the High Court for vacating, the damages have already been paid at Rs.50,000/- per month. If that be the position, the matter could put at rest by directing the defendant to pay further sum of Rs.7,50,000/- to the plaintiff in full and final settlement of all claims, by modifying the decree to that extent.