Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 14062 Mad
Judgement Date : 14 July, 2021
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 601 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 601 of 2017
and
C.M.P. No. 3106 of 2017
H.Sadiq ... Petitioner
-vs-
M/s. Amso Pharma Private Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
L.Hemant Pandia,
117, Nainiappa Naicken Street,
Chennai - 600 003. ... Respondent
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, praying to set aside the judgment
and decree dated 28.11.2016 made in R.C.A. No. 86 of 2015 on the file of the
VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, reversing the order and decretal order
dated 08.12.2014 made in R.C.O.P. No. 1720 of 2013 on the file of the XII
Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai and allow the above Civil Revision
Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr. M.Devendran
For Respondent : Mr. P.B.Balaji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/7
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 601 of 2017
ORDER
(The case has been heard through video conference)
The Civil Revision Petition has been field against the fair and decretal
order dated 28.11.2016 in R.C.A. No. 86 of 2015 passed by the VII Court of
Small Causes, Chennai.
2. Brief facts of the case:-
The Respondent/Landlord had filed R.C.O.P. No. 1720 of 2013 before
the XII Court of Small Causes, Chennai/Rent Controller against the
Petitioner/Tenant seeking for a direction to quit and deliver vacant possession
of Shop No. 4 in the ground floor of the premises bearing Door No. 1, Whites
Road, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014, on the ground of wilful default in
payment of monthly rents. The Rent Controller taking into consideration the
evidence let in by the parties, found that there was no wilful default on the part
of the Petitioner/Tenant and dismissed R.C.O.P. No. 1720 of 2013 by order
dated 08.12.2014 against which, the Respondent/Landlord filed R.C.A. No. 86
of 2015 before the VII Court of Small Causes, Chennai/Appellate Court. The
Appellate Court finding that since the cheques sent by the Petitioner/Tenant
were not encashed by the Respondent/Landlord and that the Petitioner/Tenant
has filed the petition under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 601 of 2017
Rent Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) as against
M/s. Whites India, but not against the Respondent/Landlord, had set aside the
order passed by the Rent Controller and directed eviction holding wilful default
against which, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Tenant would submit that the
Appellate Court has completely lost sight of the fact that letter dated
01.07.2010 has been issued by M/s. Whites India directing the
Petitioner/Tenant to pay the rent in favour of the Respondent/Landlord by
virtue of sub-lease deed and thereby, the Petitioner/Tenant had sent the rents by
cheque, whereas it had not been encashed by the Respondent/Landlord. He
would further submit that the said conduct of not encashing the cheque would
show the conduct of the Respondent/Landlord in putting the Petitioner/Tenant
into a precarious position to whom the rent to be paid. He would further submit
that there was no wilful default on the part of the Petitioner/Tenant. He would
further submit that the Rent Controller had rightly found that the default on the
part of the Petitioner/Tenant herein was not wilful and that the
Petitioner/Tenant has also taken immediate steps by invoking Section 8(5) of
the Act for depositing the rents into the Court by filing R.C.O.P. No. 401 of
2011 much prior to R.C.O.P. No. 1720 of 2013. He would however, submit that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 601 of 2017
the Petitioner/Tenant has also now paid the rental arrears of Rs.4,77,508/- in
favour of the Respondent/Landlord. He would further submit that the confusion
was created by the present Respondent/Landlord and M/s. Whites India who
was the original Landlord. He would further submit that the Petitioner/Tenant
was put to a predicament due to Ex.R-4, the legal notice sent by the Counsel for
M/s. Whites India, who was the original Landlord. He would further submit
that though M/s. Whites India and the Respondent/Landlord are separate
entitled, they are sister concerns. He would further submit that the intention of
the Petitioner/Tenant was not to default the payment of rent wilfully. He would
further submit that the Petitioner/Tenant is willing to pay the rent in favour of
the Respondent/Landlord regularly hereinafter. He would further submit that
the Petitioner/Tenant would also take steps to file a petition for payment out of
Rs.1,95,000/- which is lying in deposit to the credit of R.C.O.P. No. 401 of
2011 on the file of the XI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
4. Mr. P.B.Balaji, Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Landlord would
submit that the Respondent/Landlord agrees to accept the rent from the
Petitioner/Tenant hereinafter at the existing rate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 601 of 2017
5. Heard the Learned Counsels and perused the materials available on
record.
6. In this case, the Rent Controller, viz., XII Court of Small Causes,
Chennai by order dated 08.12.2014, had found that the Petitioner/Tenant herein
by filing a petition in R.C.O.P. No. 401 of 2011 under Section 8(5) of the Act
against M/s. Whites India and depositing the rent into the Court from the date
of alleged default, i.e., 01.07.2010, justified that the default was not wilful.
Further, the Rent Controller has also taken into consideration Ex. R-4, the letter
sent by the Counsel for the Respondent/Landlord on behalf of M/s. Whites
India which shows that the alleged default committed by the Petitioner/Tenant
was not wilful and deliberate. The Appellate Court without taking into
consideration the same, had erroneously set aside that order. In view of the
above, the order passed by the Appellate Court in R.C.A. No. 86 of 2015 stands
set aside. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions made, the
Petitioner/Tenant is directed to file necessary petition petition for payment out
of Rs.1,95,000/- which is lying in deposit to the credit of R.C.O.P. No. 401 of
2011 on the file of the XI Court of Small Causes, Chennai, within a period of
12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pay it to the
Respondent/Landlord.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 601 of 2017
7. In the result, the order dated 28.11.2016 in R.C.A. No. 86 of 2015 is
set aside and the order dated 08.12.2014 in R.C.O.P. No. 1720 of 2013 is
confirmed and the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
14.07.2021 vjt
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
To
1. VII Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. XII Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
3. XI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 601 of 2017
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
vjt
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 601 of 2017
14.07.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!