Madras High Court
N.Swaminathan vs D.Somasekar Reddy on 4 March, 2021
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 10.02.2021
Date of Verdict : 04.03.2021
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
and
C.M.P.No.1653 of 2021
N.Swaminathan
Rep. by Registered Power of Attorney
R.Hariharan ... Petitioner
Vs.
D.Somasekar Reddy ... Respondent
PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25(1) of Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, against the judgement
and decree passed in R.C.A.No.1161 of 2006 dated 18.07.2013 by the
learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, reversing the order and
decree passed in R.C.O.P.No.1894 of 2005 dated 30.08.2006 by the learned
XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajasekar
For Respondent : Mr.K.S.Madhavan
1/27
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the judgment and
decree passed in R.C.A.No.1161 of 2006 dated 18.07.2013 on the file of the
learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, reversing the order and
decree passed in RCOP.No.1894 of 2005 dated 30.08.2006 on the file of the
learned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, thereby, allowing the
petition for eviction filed by the petitioner herein.
2. The petitioner is the landlord (hereinafter called as “the landlord”).
The respondent is the tenant (hereinafter called as “the tenant”). The
landlord is the absolute owner of the residential flat bearing Old No.2, Door
No.3, Flat No.5, Second Floor, Ramachandra Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600
017 ad-measuring 950 sq.ft. area vide is located in very proximate place in
T.Nagar (hereinafter referred to as “the petition premises”). The landlord let
out the petition premises on lease for residential purpose to the tenant on
15.09.1991 for the monthly rent at Rs.2,000/-. Subsequently, the monthly
rent was enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. While being so, the tenant is not tendering
monthly rents regularly and as such, the arrears accumulated and the tenant
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
used to pay in lump sum. For the past three years, the tenant had
been very irregular in paying the monthly rents. That apart, the tenant,
without getting any prior permission from the landlord, had made structural
changes in the petition premises and carried material alteration and
additions by installing wooden structures and other permanent and semi-
permanent structures in concrete and brick. Further, the landlord requires
the petition premises for own use and occupation, as his brother and sister,
who are in desperate need of residential Flat. Therefore, the landlord filed a
petition for eviction, on the ground of wilful default, act of waste and
owner's occupation.
3. The tenant resisted the same by filing counter stating that the tenant
paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as advance for the petition premises. The tenant
never committed any wilful default in payment on rents. In fact, the tenant
would pay six months' rent in advance. On the notice issued by the landlord,
the tenant sent a detailed reply stating that there is no arrears of monthly
rents and in fact, the tenant paid rent upto July 2005 and thereafter, he paid
six months' rent in advance till December 2005, on 24.08.2005 itself. Again
on 29.12.2005, the tenant paid another sum of Rs.30,000/- as monthly rent,
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
upto period of June 2006. Therefore, there is absolutely no wilful default in
payment of rents. The tenant never made any structural change in the
petition premises. He has not carried any material alteration or addition. He
simply installed the wooden structure, since there is no wooden structure in
the petition premises and as such, the tenant put up a cupboard by wooden
structure. It would not amount to any permanent or semi-permanent
structure. It is not made of any concrete or brick, therefore, there is no act of
waste caused by the tenant to the petition premises. In respect of owner's
occupation, the tenant stated that there is no bonafide requirement by the
landlord, since the landlord seeks the petition premises for his brother and
sister and not for himself.
4. The landlord was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P5 were
marked. The tenant was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.D1 to D3 were
marked. The learned Rent Controller, considering the evidence let in by
either side, allowed the petition and directed the tenant to vacate and hand
over the petition premises within a period of two months. Aggrieved by the
same, the tenant filed an appeal before the learned Rent Control Appellate
Authority and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
appeal and dismissed the petition for eviction on all the grounds. Aggrieved
by the same, the landlord filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord submitted that
though the landlord filed the eviction petition on the ground of owner's
occupation, now, he is not pressing the said ground and pressing the
petition on other grounds, viz., wilful default, act of waste, sublet and non
payment of fair rent as fixed by the learned Rent Controller in
RCOP.No.1998 of 2015, which was confirmed by the learned Rent Control
Appellate Authority in RCA.No.124 of 2017. Admittedly, the tenant is not
tendering periodic monthly rents. As per the lease agreement, the tenant
shall pay rent as per the English Calender Month. After accumulation of
rents, the tenant used to pay the arrears in lump sum. For the past three
years, the tenant was irregular in tendering the periodic monthly rents. It is
also categorically admitted by him and he would tender the periodic
monthly rents, once in six months. In fact, the cheque given by the tenant
towards the payment of rental arrears was dishonored and it was marked as
Ex.P.5, which would show that the tenant committed wilful default in
payment of rents. Insofar as, the act of waste is concerned, admittedly, the
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
tenant, without getting any prior permission, made structural changes
besides carrying out material alterations by installing the wooden structural,
besides permanent and semi-permanent structures both in concrete and
brick. He also categorically admitted the fact that he installed wooden
structures and if the said structure is removed, it would result in damage the
Wall/building.
6. He further submitted that pending the Civil Revision Petition, the
landlord filed a petition for fixation of fair rent in RCOP.No.1998 of 2015.
The learned Rent Controller fixed the fair rent as Rs.43,645/- by order dated
05.01.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred an appeal in
RCA.No.124 of 2017 and the fair rent was modified by the Appellate Court
as Rs.42,204/-. It has become final and no revision was preferred by the
tenant, till today. Therefore, the rental arrears comes to Rs.22,71,864/- till
10.01.2021. He further submitted that the tenant subleased the petition
premises for commercial purpose to the third parties viz., one M/s.Vanathi
Exports Private Limited. It is evident from the fact that the extracts from the
Ministry of Corporate Affairs of the website, the petition premises
mentioned as the Registered Office of the said M/s.Vanathi Exports Private
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
Limited. The said company also filed a Writ Petition before this Court in
W.P.No.8573 of 2020 and shown the petition premises' address in the said
Writ Petition. In fact, on one occasion, the said M/s.Vanathi Exports Private
Limited deposited the rent to the petitioner's account, by an accident, for a
month. Therefore, the landlord filed a petition to raise additional grounds
including the ground for eviction, such as, for subletting the petition
premises and for non payment of fair rent fixed by the learned Rent
Controller. He further submitted that the subsequent events can also be
taken into consideration, while hearing the matters pertaining to the
eviction. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the decisions reported
in (1975) 1 SCC 770 (Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu -vs- Motor and General
Traders), 1992 (2) Supp (2) SCC 623 (Ramesh Kumar -vs- Kesho Ram)
and (2004) 8 SCC 490 (Pratap Rai Tanwani -vs- Uttam Chand).
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/tenant
contented that the landlord failed to prove any of the ground for eviction
against the tenant. The tenant used to pay the rents six months in advance.
In fact, the tenant had paid the rent upto July 2005 and thereafter, on
24.08.2005 paid six months' rents in advance for the period from July to
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
December 2005. Further, he also paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- for the period
till June 2006. Thereafter, when the landlord refused to receive the rent, he
is regularly depositing the contractual rent without any default. Insofar as
the act of waste is concerned, admittedly, the tenant has fixed only wooden
cupboard and it would not amount to alteration or addition. Even, if wooden
cupboard is removed, it will not cause any damage to the Wall/Building.
The tenant never put up any permanent or semi-permanent structures either
in concrete or in brick. Therefore, no act of waste has been caused by the
tenant. Insofar as the owner's occupation is concerned, the brother or sister
will not come in purview on the said ground and the landlord was rightly
withdrawn the said ground, for eviction.
8. He further contented that the new Act came into force, for eviction,
and the subsequent events cannot be considered as grounds for eviction
without conducting fresh trial and it is not permissible under law. Though
the landlord filed an affidavit it would not satisfy to prove the same. The
report of Private Detective Agency produced by the landlord is not an
authenticated one and as such, he cannot be permitted to raise the additional
grounds. Even assuming the said report is true, the address mentioned in the
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
said report completely differs from the petition premises. He further
contented that this Court cannot go to the facts of the case, while exercising
its revisionary powers. Therefore, the new grounds raised by the landlord
cannot be considered by this Court, since the new Act applies and the
landlord has to agitate by way of separate petition. In support of his
contentions, he relied upon the decisions reported in 1998 (1) MLJ 155
(M.Karuppanna Gounder -vs- C.Visuvasam) and (2000) II MLJ 65
(T.N.Narayanasamy -vs- N.Govindaraj) in respect of act of waste. In
respect of wilful default, he relied upon the decisions reported in (2000) II
MLJ 31 (K.L.Suganthi -vs- T.Sambalingam) and AIR 1995 SC 383
(Dakaya -vs-Anjani). In respect of the subsequent events, he relied upon the
judgment reported in (2002) 2 MLJ 63 (SC) (J.J.Lal Private Limited -vs-
Murali).
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/landlord as well as the
respondent/tenant.
10. The landlord filed a petition for eviction on the ground of wilful
default, act of waste and owner's occupation. The landlord also filed a
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
petition (C.M.P.No.1653 of 2021) to raise the additional grounds as
follows:-
“15. It is submitted that the respondent/tenant has
illegally and unlawfully sublet the premises to various third
parties from time to time and presently has sublet to one
Vanathi Exports Private Limited for commercial gains.
16. It is submitted that the records maintained by the
Ministry of Corporate Affairs as available in its website
shows that the demised property has been shown as the
registered office of the said Vanathi Exports Private
Limited and the said Vanathi Exports also has initiated
litigation in W.P.No.8573 of 2020 on the file of this Court
mentioning the same address as its office as evident from
order dated 21.08.2020.
17. The respondent has unlawfully put the property
for commercial use by the means of his illegal subletting of
the demised premises.
18. The respondent has unlawfully used the demised
premises for a purpose other than what it was let for, which
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
was strictly residential purpose.
19. The respondent has failed to pay the fair rent as
Rs.42,204/- per month as fixed vide order dated 02.01.2020
in RCA.No.124 of 2017 on the file of VII Small Causes
Court, Chennai despite the demand notice issued by the
petitioner.”
11. Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of
the petition to raise additional grounds, and this Court being satisfied with
the same, C.M.P.No.1653 of 2021 is allowed and the above grounds are
added as grounds Nos.15 to 19, is the main grounds raised in the Civil
Revision Petition.
12. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition for eviction on
all grounds, whereas, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed
the same and dismissed the petition for eviction. The landlord nowhere
stated in his petition the period in which the tenant had defaulted in
payment of monthly rents. The landlord admitted that upto December 2005,
the tenant has paid the rent for the petition premises and towards advance
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
amount, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was paid by the tenant, by way of security
deposit. Therefore, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority rightly
reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller.
13. As far as the ground of owner's occupation is concerned, the
landlord has not pressed the same.
14. Insofar as the act of waste is concerned, the tenant has put up the
wooden structure as cupboard annexed to the Wall, therefore, no structural
change is effected in the petition premises and even, if the wooden structure
removed, it would not cause any damage to the main structure. It requires
only fresh painting of the Wall. As such, this Court does not find any
infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Rent Control
Appellate Authority, insofar as the grounds of wilful default and the act of
waste.
15. Admittedly, the landlord filed a petition for fixation of fair rent
for the petition premises in RCOP.No.1998 of 2015. The learned Rent
Controller, by an order dated 05.01.2017, fixed the fair rent at Rs.43,645/-
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
p.m, payable by the tenant. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant also filed an
appeal in RCA.No.124 of 2017 and it was also modified the fair rent was
fixed at Rs.42,204/-, by an order dated 02.01.2020. Though the learned
counsel for the tenant submitted that the tenant preferred this Civil Revision
Petition before this Court, till today as against the said order, no Civil
Revision Petition is filed, since the limitation for filing the Civil Revision
Petition is one month and another one month by way of filing condone
delay. Thereafter, the landlord caused notice dated 06.02.2020 for payment
of arrears of rent as per the fair rent fixed for the petition premises. The
arrears of rent comes to the tune of Rs.22,71,864/-, till 10.01.2021.
16. The learned counsel for the landlord vehemently contented that
the petition premises is sublet to the third parties viz., one M/s.Vanathi
Exports Private Limited. Though the landlord produced the report of the
Private Detective Agency stating that the tenant is not residing in the
petition premises and some other police officer's family is residing there, the
said report dated 06.03.2012, cannot be considered, since it is not form part
of the records. Whereas, on a perusal of the electoral list, the tenant is
residing in some other place and not in the petition premises.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
17. On a perusal of the averments in W.P.No. 8573 of 2020, it reveals
that M/s.Vanathi Exports Private Limited is having its office in the petition
premises. The said M/s.Vanathi Exports Private Limited is a company
registered with Registrar of Companies, Chennai, which is consisted with
three Directors, in which the tenant is not a Director of the said company.
Therefore, it is clear that the petition premises is occupied by M/s.Vanathi
Exports Private Limited and it is used for commercial purpose. Originally,
the petition premises was leased out to the tenant for residential purpose.
Now, it is converted into the commercial purpose that too sub-leased to the
third party, by the tenant herein.
18. The learned counsel for the landlord relied upon the judgment
reported in (1975) 1 SCC 770 (Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu -vs- Motor and
General Traders), in which, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
“4. We feel the submissions devoid of substance.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
First about the jurisdiction and propriety vis-avis
circumstances which come into being subsequent to the
commencement of the proceedings. It is basic to our
processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be
judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal
proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is
the handmaid and not the mistress of the judicial process.
If a fact, arising after the lis has come to Court and has a
fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of
moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the
tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which
stultify or render inept the decretal remedy. Equity
justifies bending the rules of procedure, where no specific
provision or fairplay is violated, with a view to promote
substantial justice – subject, of course, to the absence of
other disentitling factors or just circumstances. Nor can
we contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of
updated facts to confine it to the trial Court. If the
litigation pends, the power exists, absent other special
circumstances repelling resort to that course in law or
justice. Rulings on this point are legion, even as situations
for applications of this equitable rule are myriad. We
affirm the proposition that for making the right or remedy
claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally
and factually in accord with the current realities, the
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
Court can, and in many cases must, take cautions
cognisance of events and developments subsequent to the
institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness
to both sides are scrupulously obeyed. On both occasions
the High Court, in revision, correctly took this view. The
later recovery of another accommodation by the landlord,
during the pendency of the case, has as the High Court
twice pointed out, a material bearing on the right to evict,
in view of the inhibition written into Section 10 (3) (iii)
itself. We are not disposed to disturb this approach in law
or finding of fact.”
19. The learned counsel for the landlord further relied upon the
judgment reported in 1992 (2) Supp (2) SCC 623 (Ramesh Kumar -vs-
Kesho Ram), in which, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
“9. When subsequent events are pleaded in the
course of an appeal or proceedings of revision, the
court may, having regard to the nature of the
allegations of fact on which the plea is based, permit
evidence to be adduced by means of affidavits as
envisaged in Rule 1 of Order XIX CPC. The court
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
may also treat any affidavit filed in support of the
pleadings itself as one under the said provision and
call upon the opposite side to traverse it. The court, if
it finds that having regard to the nature of the
allegations, it is necessary to record oral evidence
tested by oral cross-examination, may have recourse
to that procedure. It may record the evidence itself or
remit the matter for an enquiry and evidence. All
these depend upon the factual and situational
differences characterising a particular case and the
nature of the plea raised. There can be no hard and
fast rule governing the matter. The procedure is not to
be burdened with technicalities.”
20. The learned counsel for the landlord also relied upon the
judgment reported in (2004) 8 SCC 490 (Pratap Rai Tanwani -vs- Uttam
Chand), in which, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
“8. We cannot forget that while considering the
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
bona fides of the need of the landlord the crucial date is
the date of the petition. In Ramesh Kumar -vs- Kesho Ram
1992 Supp (2) SCC 623 a two-Judge Bench of this Court
(M.N.Venkatachalia, J., as he then was and
N.M.Kasliwal, J.) pointed out that the normal rule is that
rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined
as they were when the lis commenced and the only
exception is that the court is not precluded from moulding
the reliefs appropriately in consideration of subsequent
events provided such events had an impact on those rights
and obligations. What the learned Chief Justice observed
therein is this: (SCC pp.626-27, para 6)
“6. The normal rule is that in any litigation the
rights and obligations of the parties are adjudicated
upon as they obtain at the commencement of the lis.
But this is subject to an exception. Wherever
subsequent events of fact or law which have a
material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to
relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of
the relief occur, the court is not precluded from
taking a 'cautious cognizance' of the subsequent
changes of fact and law to mould the relief.”
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that if a fact, arising
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
after the lis has come to Court and has fundamental impact on the right to
relief or the manner of moulding it is brought diligently to the notice of the
Tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render
inept the decretal remedy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India further held
that the allegations of the fact on which the plea is based, permit evidence to
be adduced by means of affidavits as envisaged in Rule 1 of Order XIX of
the Civil Procedure Code. The Court may also treat any affidavit filed in
support of pleadings itself as one under the said provision and call upon the
opposite side to traverse it.
22. In the case on hand, the landlord filed a petition and also
document in support of the averments made in the affidavit. Further,
admittedly the landlord filed fixation of fair rent petition and the fair rent
was fixed at Rs.42,204/- per month by order dated 02.01.2020. It has
become final and no Civil Revision Petition is filed before this Court, till
today. Therefore the subsequent events can be taken into account and
accordingly moulded the relief. The landlord is now aged about 80 years
and he filed a petition for eviction in the year 2005. The petition premises is
located in prime locality of T.Nagar and it ad-measuring 950 sq.ft (Flat).
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
Originally, it was leased out for residential purpose and now converted into
commercial purpose by sub-leasing to third party. Considering the above,
this Court moulded the relief accordingly.
23. The learned counsel for the tenant in this aspect relied upon the
judgment reported in (2002) 2 MLJ 63 (SC) J.J.Lal Private Limited -vs-
Murali, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:-
“16. Om Prakash and others v. Ram Kumar and
others, (1991) 1 S.C.C. 441 was a landlord tenant
dispute where the plaintiff-landlord claimed relief of a
direction to the tenant to put the landlord in possession
on the ground of non-payment of rent under Rent
Control Law. This Court opined that under the relevant
provisions in the Statute a landlord seeking eviction of
the tenant is required to make an application in this
behalf. Such application is sustainable on one of the
grounds specified in the Act. When a specific allegation
is made that the tenant is in arrears, the tenant is given
an opportunity to pay or tender the rent within stipulated
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
time and avoid an order of eviction. In the absence of
definite allegation of non-payment of rent the tenant is
not expected to meet the case by being called upon to
answer the claim. It was held that a party cannot be
granted a relief which is not claimed, if the
circumstances of the case are such that the granting of
such relief would result in serious prejudice to the
interested party and deprive him of the valuable rights
under the statute. In an action by the landlord the tenant
is expected to defend only the claim made against him
and if a cause of action arises to the landlord on the
basis of the plea set up by the tenant, in such action, it is
necessary that the landlord seeking to enforce that cause
of action in the same proceedings must do so by
amendment or may have recourse to separate
proceedings to entitle the landlord to relief on the basis
of such cause of action. The principle that the Court is to
mould the relief taking into consideration subsequent
events is not applicable in such cases.”
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that in the absence of
definite allegation of non-payment of rent, the tenant is not expected to
meet the case by calling upon to answer the claim. A party cannot be
granted relief which is not claimed, if the circumstances of the case are
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
such that the granting of such relief would result in serious prejudice to the
interested party and deprive him of the valuable rights under the Statute.
The principle, that the Court is to mould the relief taking into consideration
subsequent events is not applicable in such cases. In the same judgment, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:-
“13. Recently in Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir
B.Goyal, (2002) 1 Supreme 202, while dealing with power
of the Court to take note of subsequent events and then to
grant, deny or modify the relief sought for in the plaint, this
Court has held:
“...The ordinary rule of civil law is that the
rights of the parties stand crystalised on the date of
the institution of the suit and, therefore, the decree in
a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as
they stood at the commencement of the lis. However,
the Court has power to take notice of subsequent
events and mould the relief accordingly subject to the
following conditions being satisfied: (i) that the relief,
as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent
events, become inappropriate or cannot be granted;
(ii) that taking note of such subsequent event or
changed circumstances would shorten litigation and
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
enable complete justice being done to the parties: (iii)
that such subsequent event is brought to the notice of
the Court promptly and in accordance with the rules
of procedural law so that the opposite party is not
taken by surprise....”
Such subsequent event may be one purely of law or
founded on facts. In the former case, the Court may take
judicial notice of the event and before acting thereon put
the parties on notice of how the change in law is going to
affect the rights and obligations of the parties and modify
or mould the course of litigation or the relief so as to bring
it in conformity with the law. In the later case, the party
relying on the subsequent event, which consists of facts
beyond pale of controversy either as to their existence or in
their impact, is expected to have resort to amendment of
pleadings under O.6, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. Such
subsequent event the Court may permit being introduced
into the pleadings by way of amendment as it would be
necessary to do so for the purpose of determining real
questions in controversy between the parties.”
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the Court has to
take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly subject to
the condition that taking note of such subsequent event or change in
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
circumstances would shorten the litigation and enable complete justice
being done to the parties.
26. In the case on hand, the eviction petition was filed in the year
2005 and subsequently fair rent was fixed at Rs.42,204/- for the petition
premises. Even till today, the fair rent is not paid by the tenant. In fact, the
landlord also caused notice on 06.02.2020 thereby calling upon the tenant to
pay the arrears of rent. The said notice was returned with the postal
endorsement as "left".
27. On a perusal of other documents, which were stated supra, the
tenant is not residing in the petition premises and he is residing elsewhere.
However, the tenant managed to return the postal cover with endorsement
as "left". Therefore, subsequent event is brought to notice of the tenant and
in fact, he vehemently contested the fair rent petition and he also filed an
appeal as against the fair rent fixed by the learned Rent Controller in
RCOP.No.1998 of 2015 and the same was confirmed in RCA.No.124 of
2017, with slight modification. Therefore, it is proved that the tenant used
the petition premises for the purpose other than that for which it was leased.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
Further, the tenant transferred his right and sub-leased the entire petition
premises to the third parties. Therefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted
from the petition premises on the ground of Section 10 (2) (ii) (a) & (b) of
the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
28. In view of the above discussion, this Civil Revision Petition is
allowed. The respondent/tenant is directed to vacate and hand over the
petition premises to the petitioner/landlord within a period of three months
from the date on which the order copy would be made ready. No costs.
04.03.2021
Speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
kv
Note to office: (i) The Registry is directed to carry out
the necessary amendments as stated in
paragraph 10 of this order in the Court
bundle.
(ii) Issue order copy on or before
10.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
To
The I Additional District and Sessions Judge of Cuudalore.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
Kv
order made in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
http://www.judis.nic.in
CRP.NPD.No.2953 of 2013
04.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
