SIVAKAMI SUNDARITHAI Vs. RAMU AMMAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Defendant in Original Suit No. 53 -of 1965 and the Plaintiff in Original Suit No. 5 of 1967 on the file of the Sub -Court, Tinunelveli is the Appellant in each of these appeals. The issues in both the suits did arise on common facts. The relevant facts may, therefore, be stated even in the first instance.

(2.) On 4th June 1958, under exhibit B -1, the registration copy of which is exhibit A -4, a rice mill belonging to the Appellant which, according to her, was run under the name and style of Sivagami Rice Mill, was leased to one Arjuna Raja who was originally the Plaintiff in Original Suit No. 53 of 1965 and on whose death his mother was added as the 2nd Plaintiff thereto and who figured as the Defendant in Original Suit No. 5 of 1967. The lease was for a period of 7 years with a right to obtain extension of the period of three years. The annual rent was fixed at Rs. 2,050. An advance of Rs. 2,000 paid by Arujuna Raja was to be refunded on the expiry of the period of the lease. Inter alia it was provided in the lease deed that Arjuna Raja could spend about Rs. 3,000 and put up structures in the precincts of the demised premises and the same should be recouped in three years by adjustment against the rent payable by Arjuna Raja. The Plaintiff was also enabled to add further machinery or buildings to the existing structures in the mill premises and it was agreed that the Appellant should pay for such machinery or structures erected on the expiry of the lease period. Though the lease started from 10th September 1958, it is the admitted case of the parties that its possession was handed over to Arjuna Raja only on 25th October 1958. Not far off from the date of such taking over, the friendly relationship between the parties slowly deteriorated resulting practically in the exchange of acrimonious correspondence between both. According to Arjuna Raja, one of the items mentioned in the lease deed exhibit A -4 was not entrusted to him and the claim of the Appellant in Original Suit No. 5 of 1967 for return of the said mill is obviously without any foundation. The grievance of the Appellant which could be gathered from her plaint in Original Suit No. 5 of 1967 and from the written statement in Original Suit No. 53 of 1965 could broadly be summarised thus.

(3.) According to the Appellant Arjuna Raja, without obtaining a licence in her name sought to put up a paddy boiling plant and obtained licence in the name of one Ven -kataperumal Raja, a relation of his, for the financial year 1960 -61. Secondly Arjuna Raja put up a chimney in the mill precincts which was abnormally big and constructed the same without obtaining the permission of the Appellant. Again, Arjuna Raja put up a boiler tank without a licence and the Appellant had threat of prosecution in regard to such an illegal activity of the lessee. The complaints to the contrary made by the lessee are that the Appellant failed to pay the additional security claimed by the Electricity Department, that he was obliged to deposit the additional sum demanded that the Defendant failed to make necessary repairs to the machinery, that she did not provide the elementary necessity of a latrine in the rice mill that she gave a false complaint to the police as if the Plaintiff attempted to remove the machinery, and above all that she sent a letter to the electricity department to disconnect the supply of energy and such disconnection was effected on 26th October, 1961. The case of Arjuna Raja and later his representative, is that the Appellant completely and effectively prevented him from running the rice mill and that it was a clear breach of covenant for good and quite enjoyment of the demised property and hence the Appellant was liable for damages for the consequent loss which resulted to Arjuna Raja. Notices were exchanged prior to suit, but as they served no purpose, Arjuna Raj had to come to Court. Arjuna Raja claimed a return of the advance, besides other sums due to him under the various clauses of the lease deed exhibit A -4 and estimated the compensation due for breach of covenant of quiet enjoyment at Rs. 1,000 per month, but limited his claim to a sum of Rs. 16,445 -46 on that account. Adding the various sums such as advance, the amount due towards constructions made by Arjuna Raja while he was running the mills, etc., he claimed in all a sum of Rs. 20,000 as per particulars set out in the plaint.