Allowed¶45

Sabrina Rajan v. B.Shamlal Darira

Madras HC3 Apr 2025CRP/115/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b) and (d) r/w 151 CPC; rejection of plaint; Article 227 revision; lease rent apportionment 50:50 ratio; claim for 90% rental share; tenant vacated premises; suit infructuous; City Civil Court Chennai; VIII Assistant Judge; C.R.P (PD) No.115 of 2025; C.M.P.No.863 of 2025; O.S.No.4190 of 2023; Sabrina Rajan v. B.Shamlal Darira and M/s.Green Tribe & Co.; Madras High Court; P.T. Asha, J.; dated 03.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; the suit in O.S.No.4190 of 2023 rejected; connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No.863 of 2025) closed; no costs. ¶45

Sabrina Rajan Vs B.Shamlal Darira — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil Revision Petition allowed; the suit in O.S.No.4190 of 2023 rejected; connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No.863 of 2025) closed; no costs.

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Revision Petition against the order dismissing the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b) and (d) r/w 151 CPC should be allowed. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

There appears to be no basis on which the plaintiff claims 90% of the lease from the 2nd defendant, since the very basis of the plaintiff's case is the lease agreement which sets out the ratio of apportionment of rent.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The suit has to fail because the agreement of lease clearly stipulates that sharing of rent between the two lessors is on a 50:50 ratio.

¶25

Key takeaways

Nothing survives in the suit as the 2nd defendant is no longer a tenant and is not in possession of the property; therefore the suit has to be dismissed as infructuous.ratio¶26
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the suit is rejected; the connected miscellaneous petition is closed with no costs.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P.T. Asha, J.; order dated 03.04.2025 in C.R.P (PD) No.115 of 2025) allowed a civil revision preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.11.2024 of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, dismissing the petitioner/plaintiff's application in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.4190 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b) and (d) r/w 151 CPC. The suit sought a direction to the 2nd defendant to pay 90% of the rent (Rs.1,26,000/- out of Rs.1,40,000/-). Holding that the lease agreement stipulated equal 50:50 sharing of the monthly rent of Rs.1,72,500/- (Rs.86,250/- to each lessor) and that there was no basis for the 90% claim, and that the 2nd defendant had vacated and was no longer a tenant so that nothing survived, the Court allowed the revision, rejected the suit as infructuous, and closed the connected C.M.P.No.863 of 2025, with no costs.

¶1

C.R.P (PD) No.115 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.04.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA.J

¶6

C.R.P (PD) No.115 of 2025 and

¶7

C.M.P.No. 863 of 2025

Sabrina Rajan

... Petitioner

vs.

1.B.Shamlal Darira

2.M/s.Green Tribe & Co., Having Office at: No.9, Kalamegam Street, Rajaji Nagar, Vilivakkam, Chennai – 600 049. ... Respondents

¶13

1/7

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

C.R.P (PD) No.115 of 2025

¶16

Prayer:

¶17

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

¶18

Constitution of India against the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in IA.No.3 of 2024 in OS.No.4190 of 2023.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. Thiyagarajan B

¶20

For Respondents : Mr. G.Saravana Kumar

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petition is filed against the order dated 11.11.2024 passed by

¶23

the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in IA.No.3 of 2024 in OS.No.4190 of 2023.

¶24

In the light of the fact that the suit has to fail not only on

¶25

account of the fact that the agreement of lease clearly stipulates that sharing of rent is on a 50:50 ratio, it is now informed to this Court that

¶26

the 2^nd defendant is no longer a tenant and nothing survives in the suit itself. Therefore, the suit has to be dismissed as infructuous as the 2/7

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

C.R.P (PD) No.115 of 2025

¶29

relief is only claimed against the 2^nd defendant who is no longer in possession of the property.

¶30

The revision arises against the order dismissing the petitioner's

¶31

application under Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b) and (d) r/w 151 CPC.

¶32

The plaintiff has filed a suit for the following relief:

¶33

“(a)Direct the 2^nd defendant to pay the 90% rental

¶34

amount of Rs.1,26,000/- out of the total rent of Rs.1,40,000/- to the plaintiff in respect of the property situated at Door No.AC-112 Old Flat No.53-B (Ground Floor) Shanthi Colony, 4^th Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040, measuring 852 sq.ft., together with undivided 1/4^th share in the land, comprised in T.Survey No.220, Part and 221 part, Block No.1 B Naduvakarai Village, except under due process of law.

¶35

3/7

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

C.R.P (PD) No.115 of 2025

¶38

(b)Directing the 1^st defendant to pay the plaintiff the

¶39

costs of the suit.

¶40

Considering the fact that the 2^nd defendant has vacated the premises without traversing deeply into the facts of the case it would be appropriate to briefly touch upon the above facts. The 2^nd defendant has entered into a lease agreement with the petitioner herein as well as the 2^nd respondent. As per terms of lease the lease rental was a sum of Rs.1,72,500/- per month, to be paid equally between two lessors at a sum of Rs.86,250/- per month. Therefore, the very basis of the plaintiff's case is this lease agreement which has sets out the ratio in which the rent has to be apportioned. There appears to be no basis on which the plaintiff claims 90% of the lease from the 2^nd defendant.

¶41