Madras High Court
Balasubramanian vs Srinivasan on 24 November, 2021
CRP.PD.No.873/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
CRP.PD.No.873/2019
[Video Conferencing]
Balasubramanian .. Petitioner
Vs.
Srinivasan .. Respondent
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960, against the order and decree
dated 22.11.2018 passed in RCA.No.9/2018 on the file of the learned
Subordinate Judge, at Chidambaram reversing the order and decree dated
12.06.2018 passed in RCOP.No.2/2013 on the file of the learned District
Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Kaatumannarkoil.
For Petitioner : Ms.N.Mala
For Respondents : Mr.B.Manimaran
ORDER
(1) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment dated
22.11.2018 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, viz., the
CRP.PD.No.873/2019
learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, in RCA.No.9/2018,
reversing the order of the Rent Control Authority, viz., the learned
District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kaatumannarkoil.
(2) Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision
Petition are as follows.
(3) The revision petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the
tenant under him. The revision petitioner/landlord filed a petition for
eviction in RCOP No.2/2013 before the learned District Munsif-
cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil, for eviction of the
respondent/tenant on the ground of willful default and also on the
ground of demolition and reconstruction.
(4) It is the definite case of the revision petitioner/landlord that the
respondent/tenant has committed default in payment of rent from
January 2009. It is admitted that the monthly rent is Rs.1,500/-. It
is also stated that the default committed by the respondent/tenant
was wilful and that, therefore he is liable to be evicted on the ground
of wilful default. As regards the ground of demolition and
reconstruction, the revision petitioner/landlord has not raised any
CRP.PD.No.873/2019
ground. It is admitted that the Rent Controller rejected the
contention to order eviction on the ground of demolition and
reconstruction and the revision petitioner/landlord has not preferred
any appeal. Hence, the Lower Appellate Court did not entertain the
plea raised by the revision petitioner/landlord to evict the
respondent/tenant on the ground of demolition and reconstruction.
As regards wilful default, the Trial Court has given a categorical
finding that the respondent/tenant has committed default for the
period at least from 17.06.2009.
(5) The revision petitioner/landlord is in the habit of giving receipts and
the respondent/tenant has produced rent receipts under Exs.R1, R4
to R7 to show that the respondent/tenant was paying rent finally on
17.06.2009. Thereafter, till December 2011. admittedly no rent was
paid. However, the respondent/tenant did not pay rent from
December 2011. The conduct of the respondent/tenant in failing to
pay rent for a period of five years from 2011 is a clear indication that
he was not sincere in paying rent even during the pendency of the
proceeding.
CRP.PD.No.873/2019
(6) It is admitted that the respondent filed a petition in the year 2016 in
IA.No.1/2016 permitting him to deposit the rent for the period from
December 2011. That petition was ordered on 04.07.2016. It was
only thereafter it is stated that the respondent/tenant deposited the
arrears in two instalments. After recording the facts, as borne out
from records, the Rent Controller gave a definite finding that the
respondent/tenant has committed wilful default. In the course of
evidence, the respondent/tenant admitted that he has committed
default. However, the explanation offered by the respondent/tenant
was to the effect that the revision petitioner/landlord wanted a sum
of Rs.3 lakhs as advance and to enhance the rent from Rs.1,500/- to
Rs.6,000/- and that therefore, rent was not paid by him. It is not the
case of the respondent/tenant that he tendered rent at any point of
time before a petition was filed for eviction on the ground of wilful
default. Even after filing the petition for eviction on the ground of
wilful default, it took five years time to file a petition seeking
permission to deposit rent in Court after the petition was filed for
CRP.PD.No.873/2019
eviction. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the
findings of the Rent Controller is convincing and supported by
evidence.
(7) The Appellate Authority without considering factual details,
observed that the conduct of respondent/tenant, whether it is wilful
or not, has to be taken as an incident to support the original cause. It
was observed by the Lower Appellate Court that the revision
petitioner/landlord cannot take advantage of lump sum payments
towards rent by the respondent/tenant during the pendency of rent
control proceedings or the appeal. The finding of the Appellate
Authority that the cause of action for the revision petitioner/landlord
to file a petition for eviction on the ground that the respondent/tenant
was a chronic defaulter from January 2009, is false, cannot be
sustained by referring to the fact that the revision petitioner/landlord
had not taken any action from January 2009 till May 2011.
(8) The provisions of the Rent Control Act clearly mandate the
requirement of respondent/tenant to tender rent without any default.
The respondent/tenant has come before the Trial Court with a
CRP.PD.No.873/2019
definite stand that he has not committed any default from January
2009 till May 2011, the period of default as per the petition filed by
the petitioner/landlord. Though the respondent/tenant has produced
some document to show that he made payments subsequent to
January 2009, the respondent/tenant has failed to prove that the
payment made up to 17.06.2009 was just for the period upto January
2009. The burden of proof lies on the respondent/tenant to prove
that he had paid rent when the revision petitioner/landlord dispute
the said fact.
(9) In the factual circumstances, the Appellate Authority ought to have
taken into account, the conduct of the respondent/tenant to pay lump
sum amount in the year 2016, the rental arrears for the period from
December 2011.
(10) From the factual and materials relied upon by the Trial Court and the
Lower Appellate Court and the submissions by the learned counsels
on either side, this Court is of the firm view that the wilful default
committed by the respondent/tenant is proved beyond reasonable
doubt. The Appellate Authority ignored the documents and the
CRP.PD.No.873/2019
conduct of the respondent/tenant while making lump sum payment
even during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent
Controller.
(11) This Court having regard to the reasons stated above, is of the view
that the order of the Appellate Authority in RCA.No.9/2018 is
unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
(12) In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the
judgment of the Lower Appellate Court, viz., the Subordinate Judge,
Chidambaram, in RCA.No,9/2018 dated 22.11.2018 and the order
of the Rent Controller, viz., the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate at Kaatumannarkoil, dated 12.06.2018 passed in
RCOP.No.2/2013 is restored. The respondent/tenant shall vacate
the premises within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. No costs.
24.11.2021
AP
Internet : Yes
CRP.PD.No.873/2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8
CRP.PD.No.873/2019
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AP
To
1.The Subordinate Judge
Chidambaram.
2.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate
Kaatumannarkoil.
CRP.PD.No.873/2019
24.11.2021
