IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO. 9721 OF 2006

Soora Balasubramaniam Chetty & Ors. … App ellants Vs. Arulmigu Ekambaranathar Thirukoil, Kancheepuram & Ors. … Respondents

O R D E R

R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

A  huge  area  of  50  Grounds  of  land  in  the  city  of Chennai was leased by the first respondent temple to the predecessors of Petitioners 1 to 6 and respondents 4 to 9 in the year 1899 for a period of 99 years, on a monthly rent of Rs.39.34. The Lessees put up a structure in the leased  land.  The said building  has been let  out by the lessees to the Postal Department (respondents 2 and 3) on a monthly rent of Rs.90,000/-.  

2. On  the  expiry  of  the  lease,  the  first  respondent temple filed a suit for possession against the lessees and

1

postal department in C.S. No.769/2001 on the file of the High  Court  of  Madras.  The  claim  of  the  lessees  under section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act was rejected  by  the  High  Court  and  SLP  against  the  said judgment was rejected by this Court.

3. In  the  suit  for  possession,  the  first  respondent temple  filed  an  application  seeking  a  direction  to  the postal department (respondents 2 and 3) to pay the rents directly to the temple instead of the lessees (defendants 1 to  12  in  the  suit)  as  the  lease  in  their  favour  had expired. Respondents 2 and 3 also filed an application in the said suit, seeking leave to deposit the rents.

4. The learned Single Judge heard the said applications and  made  an  order  dated  4.4.2006  directing  that  fifty percent of the arrears of rent due by respondents 2 and 3 (aggregating to about Rs.9,90,000/-) be paid to the first respondent  temple.  He  also  directed  continuation  of  the same arrangement in future also, pending disposal of the suit. The said order was challenged by the petitioners in an intra-Court appeal. The Division Bench found no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and rejected the appeal by a brief judgment dated 18.4.2006.

2

The  petitioners  have  filed  this  special  leave  petition seeking leave to challenge the said decision.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners and respondents 4 to 9 were the lessees under the first respondent temple and that the postal department was  their  tenant;  and  as  the  postal  department  had  no privity of contract with the first respondent temple who is the  owner  of  the  land,  the  postal  department  cannot directly pay the rents to the first respondent temple.  

6. It  is  true  that  the  postal  department  was  inducted into the premises as tenant by the lessees and that as the tenant  of  the  lessees,  liable  to  pay  the  rents  to  the lessees.  But  the  impugned  interim  order  has  been  passed taking note of certain subsequent events. The lease period in favour of the lessees has expired. The lease has not been renewed and the first respondent temple has filed a suit for possession against the lessees as also the postal department. In the said suit, the temple has also prayed for payment of Rs.985,950/- per month as damages for use and  occupation  from  1.10.2000  in  addition  to  a  sum  of Rs.27,37,500/- for the period 21.11.1998 to 30.9.2000. The first respondent temple has no security for the amount that

3

may ultimately become due, if the suit is decreed. In the circumstances,  to  safeguard  the  interest  of  the  first respondent temple, if the Court felt that 50% of the rent should  be  paid  by  the  postal  department  to  the  first respondent temple purely as an interim measure and without prejudice to the rights of parties and subject to the final decision in the suit, the petitioners can have no grievance.

7. The  learned  counsel  for  petitioners  next  contented that on account of certain vagueness in para 7 of the order dated  4.4.2006  of  the  learned  Single  Judge,  the  postal department, has misinterpreted the direction and paying to the first respondent temple, the entire rent, instead of 50%, from the date of the order.  

8. When the order of the learned Single Judge is read in entirety, it is clear that the learned Single Judge had directed that 50% of the rent should be paid to the temple, by the postal department, and the remaining 50% of the rent to the lessees. Para 7 of the judgment of the Single Judge, though  not  specific  in  this  behalf,  when  read  with  the earlier paras, makes it clear that the direction is that only 50% of the rent shall be paid to the first respondent temple.  

4

9. Respondents 2 and 3 have bona fide interpreted para 7 of the order of the learned Single Judge to mean that they should  pay  entire  rent  of  Rs.90,000/-  to  the  first respondent temple from the date of the order (4.4.2006). The payment till now (upto 31.10.2008) shall not therefore be disturbed. At all events any payment will be subject to the final decision in the suit for possession and damages filed by the first respondent temple.   

10. We therefore clarify that respondents 2 and 3 shall henceforth (that is from 1.11.2008) pay 50% of the rent to their landlords (defendants 1 to 12 in the suit) and 50% of the  rent  to  the  first  respondent  temple,  during  the pendency  of  the suit. In  regard to the  arrears for the period upto 31.3.2006, referred to in para 6 of the learned Single Judge’s Order, the 50% of arrears said to have been withheld by the respondents 2 and 3 shall be paid to the lessees of the land, if it is not already paid.

11. Having  regard  to  the  facts  and  circumstances,  we request  the  learned  Single  Judge  before  whom  the  first respondent’s suit for possession is pending to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months.

5

12. With  the  above  clarifications,  the  special  leave petition is accordingly disposed of.

………………………..…………..J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; ……………………………………….J. October 23, 2008. (Aftab Alam)              

6