M/S. I Process Services (India) vs M. Shankar
2021 Latest Caselaw 22338 Mad

                                                                                CRP.Nos.2100 of 2020
                                                                                    & 338 of 2021



                                        In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

                                                   Dated : 15.11.2021

                                                        Coram :

                                       The Honourable Mr.Justice R.SUBRAMANIAN

                            Civil Revision Petition (NPD) Nos.2100 of 2020 & 338 of 2021


                     M/s. I Process Services (India)
                     Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director,
                     Now through its Authorized Signatory,
                     Mr.Surendra Nath Pathak, National
                     Manager – Legal.                                       ...Petitioner

                                                           Vs

                     M. Shankar                                             ...Respondent

PETITIONS under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings

(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act XXIII of

1973 and by Act I of 1980 to allow these revision petitions and set

aside the fair decretal orders (i) dated 19.11.2019 passed in R.C.A.

No.20 of 2019 and (ii) dated 18.10.2019 passed in M.P.No.246 of

2019 in R.C.A.No.20 of 2019, both on the file of VIII Court of Small

Causes, Chennai, respectively.

                                    For Petitioner    : Mr.T.Srinivasa Raghavan
                                    For Respondent    : Mr.P.B.Balaji





https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                CRP.Nos.2100 of 2020
                                                                                    & 338 of 2021



                                                     COMMON ORDER

I have heard Mr.T.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr.P.B.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent.

2. These two revisions arise under Section 25 of the Tamil

Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for brevity, the

Act).

3. The respondent, as the landlord, filed RCOP.No.1358 of

2017 on the file of the 13th Court of Small Causes, Chennai under

Sections 10(2)(iii) and 10(2)(v) of the Act. Pending the aforesaid

eviction petition in RCOP.No.1358 of 2017, the respondent herein

filed MP.No.358 of 2018 under Section 11(4) of the Act seeking a

direction to the tenant/respondent herein to deposit the accumulated

arrears of rent of a sum of Rs.14,86,485/- for the period from

01.10.2016 to 31.8.2018.

4. The said miscellaneous petition was contested by the

petitioner herein claiming that the tenancy was terminated by letter

dated 13.7.2016 and hence, the Rent Controller would not have

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.2100 of 2020 & 338 of 2021

jurisdiction to entertain the very eviction proceedings. The

maintainability of the miscellaneous petition under Section 11(4) of

the Act was also questioned.

5. The learned Rent Controller, by order dated 27.11.2018,

allowed the said miscellaneous petition by rejecting the defence and

directed deposit of arrears of rent. Aggrieved, the petitioner herein

preferred an appeal in RCA.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the 8 th Small

Causes Court, Chennai. Pending the said appeal, the respondent

herein namely landlord again filed MP.No.246 of 2019 under Section

11(4) of the Act seeking deposit of the arrears of rent.

6. MP.No.246 of 2019 was also resisted on the same grounds.

Eventually, by order dated 18.10.2019, the Rent Control Appellate

Authority allowed the same and as a consequence, dismissed the

appeal in RCA.No.20 of 2019 by judgment dated 19.11.2019 since

the direction to deposit was not complied with. It is these two orders

that are challenged in these revision petitions.

7. Mr.P.B.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent

would contend that the tenant has vacated and hand over

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.2100 of 2020 & 338 of 2021

possession of the property on 24.10.2019 and as such, the entire

proceedings before the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control

Appellate Authority have become infructuous and that therefore,

these two revisions are redundant.

8. Mr.T.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner herein namely tenant would, however, contend that the

liability to pay rent/damages for use and occupation has been

decided by the Rent Controller and according to him, after

termination of the tenancy, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to

entertain a petition for eviction and decide a question relating to

liability to pay rent. Therefore, the question of jurisdiction of the

Rent Controller still survives for adjudication before this Court. He

would also submit that if these revisions are dismissed as having

become infructuous or redundant, then the landlord would rely upon

the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Rent Control

Appellate Authority in the suit filed by him seeking to recover the

rent. Therefore, according to him, these revision petitions will have

to be disposed of on merits.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.2100 of 2020 & 338 of 2021

9. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned

counsel for the parties.

10. The object of Section 11 of the Act is to ensure that a

tenant does not continue to be in possession of the property and

contest the eviction proceedings without payment of rent. The very

provision is designed to compel tenants to pay the rent if they are to

contest the eviction proceedings and continue to be in possession of

the property.

11. In the case on hand, the tenant has already vacated the

premises. Therefore, the petition in RCOP.No.1358 of 2017 does not

survive. Neither the Act nor Section 11(4) of the Act provide for a

machinery for recovery of arrears of rent from a tenant, who has

vacated the premises. Therefore, the landlord has rightly launched

the proceedings by filing a civil suit for recovery and I do not think

that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

these two revisions would have to be disposed of on merits can be

sustained. Once the tenant vacates the premises and the

relationship of a landlord and tenant snaps, the proceedings under

the Act will not survive.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.2100 of 2020 & 338 of 2021

12. Accordingly, the above two civil revision petitions are

dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs.

13. However, the other contention of Mr.T.Srinivasa Raghavan,

learned counsel for the petitioner - tenant to the effect that his

rights in the suit should not be prejudiced because of the findings

rendered by the Authorities under the Act, is quite reasonable. The

respondent herein namely landlord has already filed a suit for

recovery of rent/damages for use and occupation. It is open to the

petitioner herein namely tenant to raise all defenses available to him

in the civil suit. The Civil Court shall dispose of the suit on its own

merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in

any of the orders passed in the rent control proceedings.

15.11.2021 Speaking Order Index/Internet : Yes

To The Registrar, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

RS/SP

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.2100 of 2020 & 338 of 2021

R.SUBRAMANIAN,J

RS/SP

CRP.Nos.2100 of 2020 & 338 of 2021

15.11.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis