Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J
1. The appeal is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.78 of 1998 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tirupati, Chittoor District. Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs/Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in the said suit.
2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The brief averments in the plaint are as follows:
It is pleaded that the defendant is a licence holder of plaint A and B schedule properties. The licence fee for plaint A schedule property is Rs.1,06,726/- for the period from 01-4-1996 to 31-3-1997 and the licence fee for plaint B schedule properties for 18 months. It is further pleaded that the defendant deposited a sum of Rs.5,56,830/- in respect of plaint A schedule property towards security deposit by 31-3-1997. The defendant also deposited a sum of Rs.1,10,400/- towards security deposit for plaint B schedule property. As per terms and conditions, security deposit does not carry any interest. Further, the terms and conditions stipulated that the licensee has to pay all the charges towards electricity and water supplied by the licensor. The Corporation has supplied furniture to the canteen and it must be handed over without any damages and if damages caused, the licensee is liable to make good the said damages. The defendant became a chronic defaulter in payment of licence fee. The plaintiff issued several notices, demanding the defendant to pay arrears of licence fee, water charges and electricity consumption charges from time to time. The defendant filed W.P.No.5635 of 1997 before this Court and obtained an order of status quo. The defendant is continuing in possession of Srinivasa Bus Station Canteen i.e. B schedule property. In spite of notices, he has neither paid the dues nor replied for the said notices though he has acknowledged the same. The defendant filed O.S.No.341 of 1997 on the file of trial Court claiming damages. As on 28-02-1998, the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,72,000/- towards rental arrears, water charges, electric charges and penalty. Hence, the suit.
4. The defendant filed a written statement, the brief averments of which are thus:
(a) It is contended that as per the terms and conditions, the security deposit does not carry any interest. It is denied that he became chronic defaulter for payment of licence fee and failed to pay rent to the Corporation. He vacated the schedule premises on 04-8-1996 and he is not liable to pay Rs.79,800-05 ps. in respect of plaint A schedule canteen as per the calculation sheet filed by the plaintiffs.
(b) It is further contended that the defendant deposited a sum of Rs.5,56,830/- towards advance rent for 6 months to the Corporation, to meet any contingencies such as delayed payment of rents or default in payment of rents only. So, he is not at all liable to pay any interest as claimed by the plaintiffs. In view of the officials and staff of the plaintiffs destroyed the entire furniture provisions, cooking utensils etc., to drive away the defendant from B schedule property, he sustained heavy loss to a tune of Rs.4 lakhs. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tirupati, in O.S.No.341 of 1997 assessed the loss suffered by the defendant. The defendant stopped his business and vacated B schedule premises on 01-9-1997. The officials of plaintiffs wantonly allotted the shop room situated on the ground floor exactly at the entrance of B schedule canteen for selling fast foods, with mala fide intention of causing loss to the defendant. B schedule premises is vacant and no one is ventured to take the said premises and run the canteen due to opening of the fast food stall wherein all the food items are being sold without any restrictions. The statement of account and calculation of plaintiffs are not correct. He prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial by the trial Court:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.79,800-05 ps. in respect of plaint A schedule canteen from defendant ?
(2) Whether the defendant is in possession of B schedule canteen till 01-9-1997 ?
(3) Whether the defendant is a tenant or a licensee ? and
(4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount with interest from defendant as prayed for ?
6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-77 were marked. On behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence is adduced on his behalf.
7. After completion of trial and hearing arguments of both sides, the trial Court decreed the suit in part with proportionate costs for a sum of Rs.1,35,782-40 ps. with interest at 36% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till realization.
8. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendant filed the present appeal questioning the finding given by the trial Court.
9. Heard Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K. Viswanatham, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents/ Corporation.
10. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that the trial Court came to wrong conclusion in holding that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,46,182-40 ps., without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record in respect of plaint B schedule property. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge erred in holding that the appellant is liable to pay electricity charges as claimed by the plaintiffs, without appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have paid electricity charges particularly an amount of Rs.43,782-40 ps. to the Electricity Department. He would further contend that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is contrary to law and the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge.
11. Per contra, Sri K. Viswanatham, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents/Corporation, would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit in part and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned trial Judge and the appeal may be dismissed.
12. Now, the points for determination are:
(1) Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit in part by directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,782-40 ps. with interest at 36% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realisation ? and
(2) To what extent ?
13. Point No.1: Whether the trial Court is justified in decreeing the suit in part by directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,782-40 ps. with interest at 36% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realisation ?
The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs are Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation officials and plaint A and B schedule properties were taken over by the defendant as a licensee by agreeing the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement in between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and the defendant also deposited security deposit amount of Rs.1,10,400/- towards plaint B schedule property and the Corporation has supplied furniture to the canteen of the licensee and it has to be handed over without any damages and if any damages are caused, the licensee is liable to make good the said damages. The plaintiffs further pleaded that despite issuance of several notices demanding the defendant to pay the arrears of licence fee, water charges, electricity consumption charges from time to time, the defendant failed to discharge his duty and the defendant filed a writ petition before this Court and obtained a status quo order and subsequently the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court and subsequently the defendant vacated the premises, but he did not pay any amount as a licensee in respect of the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement in between both the parties.
14. The admitted facts are that the defendant is admitting that he is a licensee for plaint A and B schedule properties and he also admitted about the deposit of requisite security deposit amount for plaint A and B schedule properties. He himself admitted in his cross-examination that he is a licensee for both the premises i.e. plaint A and B schedule premises. The plaintiffs claimed an amount of Rs.79,800-05 ps. towards water charges and damages from the defendant in respect of plaint A schedule canteen, but on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge negatived the said claim made by the plaintiffs in respect of plaint A schedule canteen. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff did not choose to file any appeal and no cross-objections are filed by the plaintiffs in the present appeal proceedings. Therefore, the present appeal is confined with regard to plaint B schedule premises only. The fact remains that the defendant is a licensee for B schedule premises and he admitted the conditions of the licence Ex.A-15, dated 31-12-1994, in respect of plaint B schedule canteen and the licence fee is Rs.18,400/- per month for the period from 01-4-1996 to 31-3-1997. It is not in dispute that the defendant paid an amount of Rs.1,10,400/- towards security deposit in respect of plaint B schedule property.
15. The contention of the appellant is that he was in possession of plaint B schedule canteen till 01-9-1997 and thereafter, he is not in possession of the said canteen and as such he is liable to pay arrears of licence fee from April, 1997 to 01-9-1997 only. Ex.A-27 statement of account of plaint B schedule canteen filed by the plaintiffs clearly goes to show about the arrears of rentals from the defendant in respect of plaint B schedule property. The material on record clearly goes to show that the plaintiffs claimed Rs.2,02,400/- towards monthly licence fee from April, 1997 to February, 1998 at the rate of Rs.18,400/- per month and they also claimed electricity charges to a tune of Rs.43,782-40 ps. and penalty of Rs.44,090-65 ps. The plaintiffs also claimed water charges at Rs.750/- per month, but the said water charges were negatived by the trial Court by giving cogent reasons.
16. It was pleaded by the appellant that the appellant was in possession and enjoyment of plaint B schedule canteen till 01-9-1997 and as such he is liable to pay the licence fee for that period only and security deposit amount deposited by him has to be adjusted towards arrears of licence fee for that period. The defendant i.e. D.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that he was given licence to run the canteen for a period of 3 years i.e. from 1994 to 1996 and he also addressed a letter under Ex.A-32 to the Corporation authorities for extension of lease period, but the same was not extended by the Corporation. Ex.A-33 goes to show that the defendant herein filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5635 of 1997 before this Court and obtained a status quo order under Ex.A-34 and addressed a letter under Ex.A-35 to the plaintiffs in the suit. But, the fact remains that the said writ petition was dismissed on 24-4-1998. Exs.A-36 to A-38 are the notices issued by the defendant to the plaintiffs’ authorities and Ex.A-39 is the notice received by the defendant from the Corporation authorities, Exs.A-36 to A-39 clearly goes to show that the defendant vacated plaint B schedule property subsequent to the dismissal of writ petition on 24-4-1998. By giving cogent reasons and on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was in possession and enjoyment of plaint B schedule canteen till 02-6-1998.
17. The plaintiffs claimed an amount of Rs.43,782-40 ps. towards electricity charges paid by the Corporation for plaint B schedule property. Exs.A-42 to A-70 clearly goes to show that the payments under electricity charges were paid by the Corporation authorities to the Electricity Department for the entire shopping complex and also offices of the Corporation including plaint B schedule canteen. On appreciation of the entire evidence on record, basing on Exs.A-42 to A-70, the trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.43,782-40 ps. towards electricity charges and further the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,02,400/- to the plaintiffs’ authorities as he continued in the premises till 02-6-1998 as a licensee. By giving cogent reasons, the trial Court rightly deducted Rs.1,10,400/- which was deposited by the defendant towards security deposit in respect of plaint B schedule property and came to the conclusion that the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,35,782-40 ps. to the plaintiffs. I do not find any illegality in awarding the said amount of Rs.1,35,782-40 ps. to the plaintiffs from the defendant.
18. The plaintiffs claimed interest at the rate of 36% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree on the amount claimed by the plaintiffs. The learned trial Judge awarded the said rate of interest at 36% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, which is not sustainable under law and the same is exorbitant. The law is well settled that use of the word “may” in Section 34 of CPC confers a discretion of the Court to award or not to award interest or to award interest at such rate as it deems fit. In a decision reported in DDA v. Joginder S. Monga (2004) 2 SCC 297, the Apex Court has reduced the post lite interest rate from 18% per annum to 9% per annum. In ascertaining the rate of interest, the Courts of Law can take judicial notice of both inflation and also fall in bank lending rate of interest. The steep fall in bank lending rate of interest can be considered as a ground for reducing the post lite interest from 24% per annum. This Court is of the considered view that if rate of interest is unconscionable and usurious, the appellate Court has power to reduce the rate of interest from what was granted by the trial Court. In the case on hand, the learned trial Judge awarded rate of interest at 36% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree, which is nothing but excessive and exorbitant and the said rate of interest is unconscionable and usurious. Therefore, this Court is inclined to reduce the rate of interest from 36% per annum to 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of passing of decree on Rs.1,35,782-40 ps.
19. Considering the facts and also in the light of settled legal position, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court is not justified in awarding rate of interest at 36% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and reasonable to grant rate of interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization. Accordingly, the point is answered.
20. Point No.2:- To what extent ?
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the rate of interest as 12% per annum instead of 36% per annum on a sum of Rs.1,35,782-40 ps. (Rupees one lakh, thirty five thousand, seven hundred and eighty two and forty paise only) from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization. The rest of the judgment of the trial Court holds good. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I order each party to bear their own costs in the appeal. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
