High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Arulmigu Chelleeswraswami Temple v. V.Raman - SECOND APPEAL NO.1037 OF 1989  RD-TN 324 (4 June 2002)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN
SECOND APPEAL NO.1037 OF 1989
Arulmigu Chelleeswraswami Temple,
Andhiyur – 638 501,
Bhavani Taluk, Periyar District
rep. by its Executive Officer
having office at the above
Temple premises .. Appellant Vs
V.Raman .. Respondent PRAYER: Against the judgment and decree dated 29.7.1988 of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettypalayam, in A.S.No.53 of 1987, confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.3.1987 of the learned District Munsif, Bhavani in O.S.No.187 of 1983.
For Appellant : No appearance
For Respondent : Mr.Seetharaman for Mr.S.Balasubramanian :JUDGMENT
No appearance on behalf of the appellants.
2. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the courts below is the appellant in the above second appeal.
3.1. According to the plaintiff, the premises bearing Door No.26, Velayudham Pillai Street, Andhiyur, Bhavani Taluk, which belongs to the plaintiff – temple was notified for public auction as per the notice dated 24.9.1980, which is marked as Ex.B1.
3.2. Even though the defendant participated in the public auction after payment of a sum of Rs.250/- as earnest money deposit and took the said shop for lease at an annual rent of Rs.6550/- in the auction held on 15.10.1980 and immediately paid 50 of the said annual rent, namely Rs.3275/- on the same day, namely on 15.10.1980, as per Ex.B3, the said shop was brought for re-auction only after the defendant vacated the premises on 15.3.1982. Hence, the plaintiff-temple filed the above suit claiming the balance sum of Rs.3881.03 towards arrears of rent.
3.3. The said suit was resisted by the respondent/ defendant on the ground that the auction was not confirmed in favour of the respondent/defendant and in the absence of any confirmation of lease in favour of the respondent/ defendant, the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to claim any rent, much less the arrears of rent.
3.4. Inter alia, the respondent/defendant made a counter claim for refund of Rs.3275/- paid towards 50 of the advance annual rent on 15.10.1980 under Ex.B3, as well as Rs.250/- made as earnest money deposit for participating in the above auction, totaling Rs.3525/-.
4. Upon the above rival pleadings, the Courts below concurrently found that the lease was not confirmed in favour of the respondent/ defendant and therefore dismissed the suit and consequently allowed the counter claim. Hence, the above second appeal.
5. Even though there was no representation on behalf of the appellant, I was constrained to go through the relevant records and exhibits.
6. Ex.B1 is the auction notification issued by the plaintiff/ appellant for the period 1.11.1980 to 31.10.1983, as per which, the participant in the public auction should deposit a sum of Rs.250/- towards earnest money deposit and immediately after the acceptance of the highest bid amount, the successful bidder should pay 50 of the annual rent, and thereafter within seven days the successful bidder should furnish a solvency certificate and get the lease confirmed in his favour. 7. In the instant case, even though the defendant/respondent made a deposit of Rs.250/- while participating in the public auction, quoted the highest bid amount of Rs.6550/- towards annual rent for the said shop, and paid 50 advance of the annual rent, namely Rs.3275/-, admittedly, he had not furnished the solvency certificate within 7 days and as a result, the sale could not be confirmed in favour of the defendant/ respondent and it is under such circumstances, the shop was brought for re-auction, and after the expiry of the lease period, namely after 31.10.1983, the plaintiff/appellant made a claim for the alleged loss sustained by the plaintiff/appellant – temple, representing the arrears of rent invoking conditions 10 and 11 of the auction notification marked as Ex.B1.
8. If that be so, the defendant/respondent (counter claimant) having committed default of the conditions of the public auction is not entitled to claim the sum of Rs.3,725/-. On the other hand, as per the above public auction notification marked as Ex.B1, the plaintiff/ appellant is entitled to claim the loss sustained by the plaintiff/ appellant – temple representing the balance of arrears of rent payable by the defendant/respondent. The above aspect of the case, which is evident from the documents of the defendant/respondent (counter claimant) himself, namely Exs.B1 and B3 had not been properly considered nor appreciated by the Courts below, which requires my interference with the judgments and decrees of the courts below in setting aside the same and decreeing the suit as prayed for. In the result, this second appeal is allowed. No costs. 4.6.2002
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
1.The Subordinate Judge
Gobichettipalayam (with records)
2.The District Munsif
Bhavani (With records)
3.The Section Officer
V.R. Section, High Court
S.A.No.1037 of 1989
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.