Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Smt. Sarojamma and others, filed a commercial suit (Com.O.S.No.124/2023) before the LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, seeking eviction of the respondent, Pallickamalil Cinema Company Pvt. Ltd., from a leased property and recovery of arrears of rent and damages amounting to ₹1,76,20,040.25 for the period from 01.04.2000 to 30.11.2021. The trial court decreed eviction but rejected the monetary claim on the ground that it was barred by limitation and that the plaintiffs failed to prove the rate of rent. The appellants appealed under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The High Court of Karnataka, comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha, allowed the appeal in part. The court held that the claim for arrears of rent from 01.04.2000 to 30.11.2021 was not barred by limitation because the tenancy continued until the suit was filed and the suit was within three years from the date of termination. The court also found that the trial court erred in not awarding mesne profits from the date of termination. The matter was remanded to the trial court for determination of the rate of rent and mesne profits. The delay of 25 days in filing the appeal was condoned.
Headnote
A) Commercial Law - Eviction and Rent Recovery - Arrears of Rent and Mesne Profits - Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 13(1A) - The appellants sought eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages from the respondent for the period 01.04.2000 to 30.11.2021. The trial court decreed eviction but rejected the monetary claim as barred by limitation and unsupported by evidence. The High Court held that the claim for arrears of rent from 01.04.2000 to 30.11.2021 was not barred by limitation as the tenancy continued and the suit was filed within three years from the date of termination of tenancy. The court also held that the trial court erred in not awarding mesne profits from the date of termination. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the claim for arrears of rent and damages from 01.04.2000 to 30.11.2021 on grounds of limitation and lack of evidence?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the trial court's judgment insofar as it rejected the claim for arrears of rent and damages, and remanded the matter to the trial court for determination of the rate of rent and mesne profits. The delay of 25 days in filing the appeal was condoned.
Law Points
- Section 13(1A) of Commercial Courts Act
- 2015
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Rent arrears
- Mesne profits
- Eviction decree
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (12) 40
Vibhu Bakhru, C.J., C.M. Poonacha, J.
Sri Leeladhar H.P. (for appellants), Sri C.K. Nandakumar, Senior Advocate a/w Sri Aswin Prabhu S.D. (for respondent)
Smt. Sarojamma, Mr. D.R. Chandradhara, Mr. D.R. Ravikumar
Pallickamalil Cinema Company Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Commercial appeal against judgment and decree in a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the trial court's judgment and decree insofar as it rejected their claim for arrears of rent and damages of ₹1,76,20,040.25.
Filing Reason
The trial court decreed eviction but rejected the monetary claim as barred by limitation and for lack of proof of rent rate.
Previous Decisions
Trial court passed judgment and decree dated 16.11.2024 in Com.O.S.No.124/2023, decreeing eviction but rejecting the claim for arrears of rent and damages.
Issues
Whether the claim for arrears of rent from 01.04.2000 to 30.11.2021 is barred by limitation?
Whether the trial court erred in not awarding mesne profits from the date of termination of tenancy?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the claim for arrears of rent was not barred by limitation as the tenancy continued and the suit was filed within three years from termination.
Respondent contended that the claim was time-barred and that the appellants failed to prove the rate of rent.
Ratio Decidendi
A claim for arrears of rent during a continuing tenancy is not barred by limitation if the suit is filed within three years from the date of termination of the tenancy. The trial court must determine the rate of rent and mesne profits based on evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
For the reasons stated in the application – I.A.No.1/2025, the same is allowed. The delay of twenty five days in filing the appeal is condoned.
The appellants have filed the present appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, impugning a judgment and decree dated 16.11.2024 [impugned order] delivered by the Court of LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [Commercial Court] in Com.O.S.No.124/2023.
Procedural History
The appellants filed Com.O.S.No.124/2023 before the Commercial Court seeking eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages. The trial court decreed eviction but rejected the monetary claim on 16.11.2024. The appellants filed the present appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, with a delay of 25 days, which was condoned.
Acts & Sections
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015: 13(1A)
