Madras High Court
Mr. N. Manoharan vs K. Venkatraj on 29 January, 2021
C.R.P.(PD) No.2119 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.01.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.R.P.(PD) Nos.2119 & 2121 of 2020
and
CMP NOS. 13408, 13410, 13414 & 13415 of 2020
Mr. N. Manoharan ... Petitioner
(In both petitions)
Vs.
K. Venkatraj ... Respondent
(In both petitions)
Common Prayer: These Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 25
of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act 1960 seeking for
to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 06.03.2020 passed by the
learned Rent Control Appellate Authority/Sub-Ordinate Judge, Coonoor
in R.C.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2019 confirming the order and decree dated
27.06.2018 and 07.02.2019 passed by the learned Rent Controller,
Coonoor in R.C.O.P. Nos.1 of 2016 and 3 of 2017.
For Petitioner ... Mr.A. Immanuel
|For Respondent ... Mr. S. Kadarkarai
(In both petitions)
****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2119 of 2020
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act 1960 seeking for to set aside the
Judgment and decree dated 06.03.2020 passed by the learned Rent
Control Appellate Authority/Sub-Ordinate Judge, Coonoor in R.C.A.
Nos. 2 and 3 of 2009 confirming the order and decree dated 27.06.2018
and 07.02.2019 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Coonoor in
R.C.O.P. Nos.1 of 2016 and 3 of 2017.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent herein who is
the landlord of the petition mentioned premises, has filed R.C.O.P. Nos.1
of 2016 and 3 of 2017 on the file of the Rent Controller of Coonoor,
against the petitioner herein who is the tenant therein, to vacate and
handover the possession of the petition mentioned premises because of
the building is in dilapidated conditions and wilful default on payment of
rent on the side of the tenant/petitioner herein. The same was allowed by
orders dated 27.06.2018 and 07.02.2019. Challenging the aforesaid
orders, the tenant/petitioner has filed the appeals in R.C.A. Nos. 2 & 3 of
2019 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Coonoor,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2119 of 2020
wherein the learned Judge confirmed the aforesaid both RCOPs and
dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved, the
tenant/petitioner herein has filed these Revision Petitions to set aside the
aforesaid orders passed by the Court below.
3 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the
petition mentioned premises is safe condition, the landlord/respondent
herein wantonly filed the R.C.O.P. No.1 of 2016 before Court below to
vacate the tenant/petitioner herein on the ground of demolition and
reconstruction as the petition mentioned premises is a dilapidated
condition. It has been further submitted that the petitioner herein has
been a tenant in the petition mentioned premises for the past twenty years
while it was rent of Rs.250/- onwards per month, and it was gradually
increased upto Rs.4,200/- per month. An advance of Rs.10,000/- was
already paid to the landlord/respondent herein. In the meanwhile, the
landlord/respondent got signature from the tenant/petitioner herein in an
agreement mentioning therein monthly rent as Rs.4,500/- whereas the
monthly rent being of Rs.4,200/-. When it was questioned by the
tenant/petitioner herein as to the rent has been mentioned for Rs.4500/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2119 of 2020
in the rental agreement instead of Rs.4,200/-, as it was originally paid
monthly as rent during that time, the landlord/respondent replied that as
it was the purpose to submit to Coonoor Municipality, the rent of
Rs.4,500/- was mentioned. The tenant/petitioner herein has been paying
rent of Rs.4,200/- every month without any default. But, the
landlord/respondent has filed R.C.O.P. No.3 of 2017 on the file of the
Rent Controller, Coonoor on the ground that the tenant/petitioner herein
wilfully refused to pay rent for the petition mentioned premises the
difference of Rs.300/- per month from September 2013 to 15.06.2016
totalling to Rs.9,900/-. The learned Rent Controller failed to note that
the rent of Rs.4,200/- has been paid every month to the
landlord/respondent herein regularly without any fail. Moreover, the
landlord/respondent herein has not sent any notice seeking for the
difference amount of Rs.300/- every month payable towards rent which is
said to be default of rent totalling of Rs.9,900/- from September 2013 to
15.06.2016. Without considering the aforesaid aspects and facts and
circumstances of the case, the learned Rent Controller confirmed the
R.C.O.P. Nos.1 of 2016 and 3 of 2017 and dismissed both the appeals
and hence the orders passed by the Court below are liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2119 of 2020
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that the learned Judge after considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, confirmed both CRPs and dismissed the appeals filed by the
tenant/petitioner herein. As the petition mentioned premises is in a
dilapidated condition, the Municipal Commissioner, Coonoor, had issued
notice dated 14.05.2015 directing the respondent herein to demolish and
remove the building. After receipt of the notice from the Municipal
Corporation, the landlord/respondent herein has sent a notice to all
tenants including the petitioner herein to vacate the building for
demolition and reconstruction purpose. At the same time, the petitioner
had default in paying the rent for occupying the premises for the rent of
Rs.4,500/- every month. Under these circumstances, the
landlord/respondent herein has filed both RCOPs against the
tenant/petitioner herein. The same was rightly allowed by the Court
below against which the appeals filed by the petitioner herein were
dismissed confirming the Trial Court's Judgments. Hence, these Civil
Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed as untenable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2119 of 2020
4. On a perusal of the record, it is seen that during the trial in
RCOP No.1 of 2016, the petitioner and the Planning Inspector were
examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively. Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 were marked
on the side of the petitioner therein-landlord/respondent herein. R.W.1
was examined and Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 were marked on the side of the
respondent therein-tenant/petitioner herein. Ex.P4 notice dated
14.05.2015 issued by the Coonoor Municipality was corroborated with
the deposition of P.W2 who is the one official from Coonoor
Municipality. It has been further submitted by P.W.2 that the notice
dated 14.05.2015 was issued after complying the required formalities as
the petition mentioned premises was in a dilapidated condition which
would have been caused to jeopardise to adjacent neighbours. Despite
Door No. was not mentioned in the said notice, it was confirmed by the
Official that the notice was sent to the petition mentioned premises only.
It is evident that the building was not good stage and hence, the Trial
Court has rightly allowed the petition directing the tenant/petitioner
herein to vacate and handover the possession to the landlord/respondent
herein. In another RCOP No.3 of 2017, the Trial Court perused the entire
oral and documentary evidence filed by both sides and found that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2119 of 2020
respondent therein-tenant/petitioner herein was in default in paying the
difference rent of Rs.300/- every month after corroborating with Ex.P1
/Tenancy Agreement dated 17.09.2013 even though Bank Statements and
Bank Deposit Challans were marked as Exhibits during the trial wherein
there was no evidence produced in paying the difference rent of Rs.300/-
according to the rental agreement Ex.P1. Moreover, the respondent
therein-tenant/petitioner herein neither produce any documentary nor oral
evidence to prove on his side that the rent had been fixed at Rs.4200/-
only not to Rs.4,500/- per month. Hence, the Trial Court allowed the
aforesaid petition. The petitioner did not produce any evidence with
regard to the building good condition before this Court and Courts
below. Even though the petitioner has paid rent of Rs.4200/- regularly
without any default, however, the rental agreement clearly shows that the
rent has been fixed as Rs.4500/-. Whereas the petitioner is in default of
payment towards difference amount of Rs.300/- every month totalling to
Rs.9900/ - from the month of September 2013 till 15.06.2016 amounting
to Rs.9,900/-. In this regard, the petitioner did not produce any evidence
whether the rent of Rs.4200/- was only fixed at the time of execution of
rental agreement. Hence, in the absence of evidence on the side of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD) No.2119 of 2020
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.,
lbm
petitioner, the Rent controller rightly confirmed the Judgments and
orders of the Trial Court. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the orders passed by the Court below and these petitions are liable
to be dismissed.
5. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed if any. There
shall be no order as to costs.
29.01.2021
Lbm
Index: Yes/No.
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
Internet: Yes/No.
To:
The Learned Rent Controller,
Coonoor
C.R.P.(PD) Nos.2119 & 2121 of 2020
and
CMP NOS. 13408, 13410, 13414 & 13415 of 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
