Madras High Court
M.Subramanian ...Revision vs A.Nagendran on 8 March, 2021
CRP(MD)No.1105 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 08.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
CRP(MD)No.1105 of 2014
M.Subramanian ...Revision Petitioner/Appellant/
Respondent/Tenant
Vs.
A.Nagendran .. Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner/
Landlord
PRAYER:- Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code against the fair order and decretal order dated 25.03.2014 made in
R.C.A.No.18 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority,
Tirunelveli (Principal Sub Judge) confirming the fair and decretal order
dated 01.03.2012 made in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2011 on the file of the 1st
Additional Rent Controller Tirunelveli (1st Additional District Munsif),
Tirunelveli.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Selvan
For Respondent : Mr.V.P.Rajan
for Mr.V.Suresh Kumar
JUDGMENT
The tenant is the petitioner. The landlord sought for eviction under
Sections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act.
http://www.judis.nic.in1/7
CRP(MD)No.1105 of 2014
2. The landlord would claim that he has purchased the schedule
building on 18.06.2009. The petitioner herein, who was tenant under the
erstwhile owner, was allowed to continue for the monthly rent of Rs.5000/-.
Since the tenant did not come forward to pay the rent, notice was issued
calling upon him to pay the rent on 08.12.2010. Complaining that the tenant
had failed to pay the rent despite receipt of said notice, the landlord has
approached the court for eviction. The claim of the landlord was rejected by
the tenant by a novel plea of oral agreement of sale between the erstwhile
owner and the petitioner/tenant. He would further claim that erstwhile
owner agreed to receive the rent as and when the sale deed is executed. It is
also contended that upon receipt of notice the tenant has paid the rent and
therefore, he has absolved from default.
3. At trial, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and one
Subramanian was examined as P.W.2. The respondent was examined as
R.W.1 and two other persons namely Shanmugam and Ravi were examined
as R.W.2 and R.W.3. Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked on the side of the
petitioner. Exs.R.1 to R.15 were marked on the side of the respondent.
http://www.judis.nic.in2/7
CRP(MD)No.1105 of 2014
4. The learned Rent Controller, upon consideration of the evidence on
record, particularly, the oral evidence of the tenant that he is not liable to
pay the rent, concluded that the tenant's conduct amounted to nothing but
default. On the ground of owner's occupation, the learned Rent Controller
found that the landlord has not proved that the requirement is bonafide and
rejected the eviction on the said ground.
5. Aggrieved, the tenant has preferred an appeal in R.C.ANo.18 of
2012. The learned appellate authority, upon re-consideration of the evidence
on record, concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the
appeal. Hence, this revision.
6. I have heard Mr.T.Selvan, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant
and Mr.V.P.Rajan, learned counsel for Mr.V.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent/landlord.
7. Mr.T.Selvan, learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently
contend that the authorities namely, the Rent Controller and the Appellate
Authority were not right in ordering eviction. He would submit that notice
was issued on 08.12.2010 and the arrears was paid on 04.01.2011 within a
http://www.judis.nic.in3/7
CRP(MD)No.1105 of 2014
period of two months and therefore, the tenant cannot be said to have
committed wilful default. The fact that the tenant paid the rent within two
months will absolve him consequence of liability and consequence of
willful default only when it is shown that he has paid the arrears of rent due.
In the case on hand, both the courts found that Rs.225/- was not agreed to
pay as rent between the parties. The courts below have taken note of the
conduct of the tenant in not paying the rent even during the pendency of this
proceeding. The lower appellate court has pointed out that the tenant had
denied his liability to pay the rent in his evidence. The tenant has committed
wilful default in payment of rent. In view of the above said categorical
findings of the courts below, I am unable to conclude that the said findings
are erroneous or perverse. As a revisional authority under Section 25 of the
Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act jurisdiction of this
Court is limited to error of law. This Court cannot re-appreciate the
evidence even though jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamilnadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act has been held to be little wider than
the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of C.P.C. The authorities
constituted under the Act had examined the evidence on record in proper
perspective and they have reached the conclusion that the tenant is guilty of
wilful default in payment of rent.
http://www.judis.nic.in4/7
CRP(MD)No.1105 of 2014
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, despite his best efforts, is
unable to point out any evidence that has been omitted to be considered by
the courts below. Both the courts have concurrently found that the tenant
has committed default in payment of rent and he has also expressed his
intention to commit default in payment of rent. This default can be said to
be wilful default as defined under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamilnadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. I do not see any ground to interfere
with the orders of the authorities. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition fails
and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
9. After orders were pronounced dismissing the revision, the learned
counsel for the petitioner would seek time to vacate and hand over vacant
possession. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been doing business
in the tenated premises, the petitioner is granted time till 30.10.2021 subject
to the condition that the petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking to
vacate by the said date. The affidavit shall be filed on or before 19.03.2021.
08.03.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
CM
http://www.judis.nic.in5/7
CRP(MD)No.1105 of 2014
To:
1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority,
(Principal Sub Judge),
Tirunelveli
2.The 1st Additional Rent Controller,
(1st Additional District Munsif),
Tirunelveli.
3.The Section Officer VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in6/7
CRP(MD)No.1105 of 2014
R.SUBRAMANIAN.J.,
CM
CRP(MD)No.1105 of 2014
08.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in7/7
