Madras High Court

M.Suresh Kumar vs K.R.Radhakrishnan on 22 January, 2021

                                                                       C.R.P.(PD)No.3663 of 2013

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      Dated : 22.01.2021

                                                            CORAM

                            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                              C.R.P.(PD) No.3663 of 2013
                                                         and
                                                   M.P.No.1 of 2013

                   M.Suresh Kumar                                                  ... Petitioner
                                                           Vs.

                   K.R.Radhakrishnan                                             ... Respondent

                   Prayer :- The Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
                   Constitution of India praying that the order passed in N.T.A.No.31 of 2002,
                   dated 07.02.2013 is exfacie illegal and the findings rendered are perverse
                   vitiated by flouting the direction of the High Court in C.R.P.No.24 and 959
                   of 2004, confirming the Decree in Suit. Therefore, the judgment rendered
                   by the 4th Judge Small Causes Court Chennai, in Suit No.17/1999, dated
                   04.10.2002, may be set aside and allowing the CRP dismissing the suit.


                                          For Petitioner    : Mr.M.Suresh Kumar
                                                             (Party-in-person)

                                          For Respondent    : Notice served – No appearance

                                                        ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is arising out of the fair and decreetal

order passed in New Trial Application (N.T.A.) No.31 of 2002, dated

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

C.R.P.(PD)No.3663 of 2013

07.02.2013 on the file of the IV Small Causes Court, Chennai, thereby

modified the order passed in Suit No.17 of 1999 dated 04.10.2002, thereby

decreed the suit filed by the respondent herein.

2. The respondent is the plaintiff. He filed a suit for recovery of

money to the tune of Rs.18,360/- together with the interest @ 18% per

annum. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the building

bearing Door No.39, Venkaiyar Street, Kondithoppu, Chennai – 79 and the

petitioner was inducted as a tenant for the monthly rent of Rs.600/- in the

second floor of the said premises in the year 1985. He paid a sum of

Rs.6,000/- as an advance. Besides monthly rent, the petitioner has to pay

electricity consumption charges as per the sub-meter reading once in two

months and Rs.60/- towards water consumption charges for every month.

Thereafter, the rent has been increased from time to time and rent was fixed

at Rs.850/- in the month of October 1994. The petitioner paid rent up to

November 1994 and thereafter, failed to pay any rent from the month of

December 1994 onwards.

3. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.600/- only instead of Rs.850/-. In

fact the petitioner has also filed R.C.O.P.No.191/1995 seeking permission https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(PD)No.3663 of 2013

to deposit the rents. The respondents also filed R.C.O.P.No.454 of 1996 to

restore the amenity of electricity which was already provided by the

respondents herein. Subsequently, the petitioner filed R.C.O.P.No.191 of

1995, which was dismissed on 12.09.1997. Thereafter, the respondent filed

R.C.O.P.No.2848 of 1997 for eviction under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Tamil

Nadu Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act and the same was ordered and

accordingly, the respondent had taken possession of the petition premises

on 03.12.1999. Though the petitioner vacated the premises, he is liable to

pay the rental arrears from 01.11.1995 to 03.12.1998 after deducting the

advance amount paid by the petitioner and for the remaining amount the

respondent filed a suit. The said suit was decreed by the judgment and

decree dated 04.10.2002.

4.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal in New Trial

Application (N.T.A.) on 03.01.2002, the same was partly allowed and the

petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,254/- with interest at the rate of

18% per annum from the date of the decree and at the rate of 6% per annum

from the date of decree to realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present

Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

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

C.R.P.(PD)No.3663 of 2013

5. The petitioner appeared in Party-in-person and submitted that he

filed a petition to restore the amenities in R.C.O.P.No.494 of 1996 and filed

R.C.O.P No.191 of 1995 for deposit rental arrears. The learned Rent

Controller allowed the petition for restoration of amenities and dismissed

the petition for depositing the rent arrears. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority

in R.C.A.No.906 of 1997. Simultaneously, the respondent also filed an

appeal in R.C.A.No.1053 of 1996 against the restoration of amenities. The

learned Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal filed by the

respondent and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Civil Revision Petitions in

C.R.P.Nos.24 & 959 of 2004 before this court, and by an order dated

31.07.2007 directed the Appellate Court in N.T.A.No.31 of 2003 to look

into the evidence and also look into the matter and pass necessary orders on

merits in the NTA.

6.Even then, the Appellate Court did not consider the evidence on record

and without even looking into the observation made by this court, fixed the

rent at the rate of Rs. 850/- per month and reduced the amount insofar as the

water charges alone and decreed the suit for the sum of Rs.16,254/-. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(PD)No.3663 of 2013

7. Further submitted that the respondent categorically admitted that

there is no agreement for the monthly rent of Rs.850/-. Admittedly, he

disconnected the electricity connection and cut down the water connection.

As such, the petitioner constrained to file a petition to restore the amenities.

In fact, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition and directed the

respondent to restore the amenities. The Appellate Court, without

considering those aspects mechanically dismissed the appeal in part.

Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Court below.

8. Though notice served to the respondent and the name printed in

the cause list, none appeared for the respondent in person or through

pleader.

9. Respondent is the plaintiff, he filed a suit for recovery of money of

Rs.18,360/- together with 18% interest. Admittedly the petitioner was

inducted as tenant in the petition premises owned by the respondent

company at the rate of monthly rent of Rs.600/-. Subsequently, the rent was

fixed at the rate of Rs.850/- per month for the petition premises. Thereafter,

the respondent refused to receive the rent at the rate of Rs.600/- and as such https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(PD)No.3663 of 2013

the petitioner filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.191 of 1995 for depositing of

rents. He also filed R.C.O.P. No. 455 of 1996 for restoration of amenities

such as electricity and water. Though the restoration of amenities was

reduced by the Rent Controller, it was negatived by the learned Rent

Control Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

preferred Civil Revision Petition before this Court in C.R.P.No.26 of 2004.

The respondent also filed a petition for eviction on the ground of wilful

default in R.C.O.P No.2848 of 1997 and eviction was ordered by an order

dated 16.04.1988. Thereafter, the respondent filed execution petition in

E.P.No.291 of 1988 and had taken delivery of possession of the petition

premises. Thereafter the respondent filed the present suit for recovery of

arrears of rent. This Court while disposing the Civil Revision Petition filed

by the petitioner observed as follows:

“At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that without any basis whasoever, the Rent Controller has fixed the rental at the rate of Rs.850/- and it has been simply accepted by the Court of Small Causes for fixing the rental arrears and the decree has been passed. It is an admitted position that there was a specific issue in this regard as to the quantum of rental payable by the revision petitioner as tenant to the respondent / landlord. The Court is of the considered opinion that it would be fit and proper that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(PD)No.3663 of 2013

both the parties should be given a liberty to raise their respective contentions on the issues before the appellate forum, since the matter is pending before the appellate forum. A direction is also issued to the appellate forum to look into the evidence and also look into the matter and pass necessary orders on merits in the NTA, what is pending on its file. With the above observations, these civil revision petitions are disposed of. No costs.”

10. Accordingly, the Appellate Court considered the direction issued

by this Court and partly allowed the appeal. It is seen that the rent was fixed

from Rs.600/- to Rs.850/-. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to pay a sum

of Rs.600/- per month as if the respondent refused to receive the same. Only

for the said reason, the petitioner filed petition in R.C.O.P. No.191 of 1995

for depositing rent, which was negatived by the learned Rent Controller and

it was also confirmed by this Court. Therefore, the monthly rent of a sum of

Rs.850/- is correct and confirmed by this Court. In respect of the current

consumption charges, the petitioner ought to have paid the same in

accordance with the sub meter charges. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to

pay the same and the same was dismissed. Insofar as the water consumption

charges are concerned, the respondent has failed to prove the same. As

such, the trial Court rightly deducted the same and decreed the suit for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

C.R.P.(PD)No.3663 of 2013

Rs.16,254/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.