Madras High Court
Loganathan @ Saravanan vs Ravisankar Sah on 7 June, 2021
C.R.P.(PD).No.3285 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.R.P.(PD).No.3285 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.21325 of 2019
Loganathan @ Saravanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
Ravisankar Sah ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, to set aside the Judgment and
Decree of the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Kanchipuram, dated 05.02.2019
passed in R.C.A.No.17 of 2012, modifying the fair and decretal order dated
21.02.2012 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Kanchipuram in
M.P.No.51 of 2011 in RCOP.No.1 of 2009.
For Petitioner : M/s.S.D.S.Philip
For Respondent : Mr.N.Nagusah
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment and
decree of the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Kanchipuram, dated 05.02.2019
passed in R.C.A.No.17 of 2012, modifying the fair and decretal order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.3285 of 2019
21.02.2012 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Kanchipuram in
M.P.No.51 of 2011 in RCOP.No.1 of 2009.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the RCOP.No.1 of 2009 was filed
by the respondent / landlord seeking eviction under Section 10(2)(1) of the
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, directing the
petitioner / tenant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit
schedule property. When the said RCOP was pending, the respondent /
landlord has filed M.P.No.51 of 2011 under Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 to direct the petitioner / tenant to
deposit the arrears of rent Rs.1,23,000/-, and if he fails to pay the same, to
direct him to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule
property. The Principal District Munsif at Kanchipuram by order dated
21.02.2012 had fixed the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.1,100/- per month
and directed the petitioner / tenant to deposit the same from the date of filing
of the RCOP till the date of final order in the same. However, the petitioner
had filed an appeal in RCA.No.17 of 2012 challenging the said order dated
21.02.2012 and the Rent Control Appellate Authority by order dated
05.02.2019 had modified the order passed by the Principal District Munsif at
Kanchipuram and fixed the rent at Rs.2,500/- per month, and accordingly, the
petitioner was directed to pay the rent at Rs.2,500/- per month from February
2019 till the date of final order in the said RCOP. Aggrieved by the said order,
the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.3285 of 2019
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner / tenant would submit that the
order passed by the Appellate Authority is contrary to law as the landlord has
not filed any appeal as against the fixation of monthly rent at Rs.1,100/- per
month in M.P.No.51 of 2011 in RCOP.No.1 of 2009. When there is no appeal
filed by the landlord, the Appellate Authority ought not to have modified the
rent and suo moto raised the rent from Rs.1,100/- fixed by the Learned
Principal District Munsif at Kanchipuram to Rs.2,500/- per month. He would
also submit that it is not within the purview of the Appellate Authority to hold
that the petitioner had not insisted the rental receipt as per Section 8(2) of the
said Act from the landlord and the Appellate Authority can fix the arrears
payable only till March 2007 which is Rs.10,500/-per month as against the
wrong fixation of monthly rent.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that
originally the petitioner / tenant had paid only a sum of Rs.150/- per month for
running a shop and gradually it was increased to Rs.750/- per month from the
year 2000 and thereafter it was increased to Rs.1,100/- per month. But the
case of the tenant is denied by the respondent / landlord stating that from
March 2007, the respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,500/- towards
arrears of rent and the same was accepted by the tenant, and from April 2007
to till 30.05.2011, a sum of Rs.1,23,000/- is due from the tenant after
deducting the sum paid by him after notice. The tenant has not paid any rent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.3285 of 2019
after filing the application and hence the respondent has filed the petition
under Section 11(4) of the Act.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel
for the respondent, and perused the materials available on record.
6. On perusal of the records, it is clear that the rent control
proceedings were initiated as early as 2009 and it is pending for more than 11
years, wherein, the respondent / landlord had approached the Rent Control
Authority at Kanchipuram, seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default.
The Principal District Munsif has fixed the rent as Rs.1,100/- per month in
M.P.No.51 of 2011 and the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.17
of 2012 has modified the same as Rs.2,500/- per month. Aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner herein has filed this revision petition before this Court.
7. It could be seen from the records that originally the petitioner's
parents were the tenants under the respondent and periodically the rent
seems to have been increased from Rs.150/- to 2,500/- per month as claimed
by the landlord. This could be found and it is evident from the legal notice
sent by the respondent / landlord which has not been denied anywhere in the
petition filed by the petitioner even in this appeal. In spite of receiving the
notice, the petitioner has not paid the arrears of rent, and the respondent /
landlord has issued the legal notice stating that as on March 2007,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.3285 of 2019
Rs.10,500/- was due and the total due as on July 2007 was Rs.20,500/-. The
said fact was not denied by the petitioner / tenant at any point of time.
8. It is clear from the records that sufficient notice has been issued by
the respondent / landlord claiming the arrears of rent, and now the petitioner
cannot come and state that the respondent / landlord is not having the habit
of issuing receipt for the rental amount received. If the landlord has not issued
the receipt, it is for the tenant to seek receipt from the landlord. If the landlord
fails to issue the receipt, the tenant ought to have approached the court for
depositing the rent or sent the rent through bank account of the respondent /
landlord. It is not seen anywhere that the petitioner has taken such efforts.
The ground taken by the petitioner is that the landlord has not filed any
appeal before the Appellate Authority seeking enhancement of the rent and
the Appellate Authority on its own has enhanced the rent to be paid by the
tenant. He would also submit that the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction
to enhance the rent, and this Court does not agree with the same and the
Rent Control Appellate Authority has got every jurisdiction to interfere and
modify or enhance the rent fixed by the Rent Control Authority even if appeal
is not filed by the landlord or if it is erroneously calculated and fixed by the
Rent Control Authority.
9. In the present case on hand, the Rent Control Appellate Authority
has rightly come to the conclusion and modified the quantum of rent payable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.3285 of 2019
by the tenant for the suit schedule property at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per
month from the date of filing of the RCOP till the date of final order in the
same. Hence this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
10. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the
order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.17 of 2012.
Hence, this Civil Revision Petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11. As the rent control proceedings in RCOP.No.1 of 2009 are pending
from the year 2009, the Rent Control Authority is directed to dispose of the
same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. The counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo of calculation of rent
paid by the petitioner to the respondent / landlord from 31.03.2007 till
13.01.2021. The same can be considered by the Court below and pass
appropriate orders.
07.06.2021
raja
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
To
1. The Principal Sub Judge, Kanchipuram
2. The Principal District Munsif, Kanchipuram
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.3285 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(PD).No.3285 of 2019
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J.,
raja
C.R.P.(PD).No.3285 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.21325 of 2019
07.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
