Skip to content


Amulya Chandra Roy Chowdhury Vs. Shiva Krishna Bose and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in40Ind.Cas.768
AppellantAmulya Chandra Roy Chowdhury
RespondentShiva Krishna Bose and ors.
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - purchaser of lessee's interest, liability of, to pay interest stipulated in lease--interest on arrears of rent, whether payable down to date of decree in rent suit. - .....the terms of the contract were. he knew that, if he did not pay his rent on the proper day, the rent in arrears would carry interest at the heavy rate of 60 per cent, per annum. he might have avoided this liability, first of all, by not purchasing the property and, secondly, by paying his rent in proper time. it seems that there is no case of hardship against the defendant-appellant at all. he has put his head deliberately into the noose and for good or bad, he is a tenant holding his land at a rent which carries interest at 60 per cent, per annum when in arrears. the other point argued is that the learned judge of the lower appellate court ought not to have allowed interest at the contractual rate from the date of the institution of the suit down to the date of judgment,2. the.....
Judgment:

Fletcher, J.

1. This appeal must be dismissed. The defendant appeals against the rate of interest which he has to pay according to the terms of the contract under which the property is held. He purchased the property with full knowledge apparently of what the terms of the contract were. He knew that, if he did not pay his rent on the proper day, the rent in arrears would carry interest at the heavy rate of 60 per cent, per annum. He might have avoided this liability, first of all, by not purchasing the property and, secondly, by paying his rent in proper time. It seems that there is no case of hardship against the defendant-appellant at all. He has put his head deliberately into the noose and for good or bad, he is a tenant holding his land at a rent which carries interest at 60 per cent, per annum when in arrears. The other point argued is that the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court ought not to have allowed interest at the contractual rate from the date of the institution of the suit down to the date of judgment,

2. The learned Judge says that that is the rate agreed upon and, therefore, presumably there is no reason, because the defendant has put the plaintiff to the trouble of coming to Court to realize the rent in arrears, why the defendant should pay a rate smaller than the contractual rate Otherwise, it would be encouraging the defendant who is liable to pay interest at 60 per cent, per annum on the rent in arrears to avoid payment every time when the rent becomes due, on the ground that the rent during the pendency of the suit, which by a judicious set of movements and application's for postponement can we all know, be extended for a long period of years, should be at a smaller rate. I think the learned Judge exercised his discretion very wisely, when he held that if the defendant did not pay his rent in time he would have to pay the contractual rate of interest. I see no reason why we should dissent from the view taken by the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court. The present appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.

Nowbould, J.

3. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //