Madras High Court
R.V.Thirunavukarasu vs Thibert Lourdusamy on 26 November, 2021
C.R.P. (NPD) No.1431 of 2021
and CMP No.11171 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.1431 of 2021
and CMP No.11171 of 2021
R.V.Thirunavukarasu .. Petitioner
Vs.
Thibert Lourdusamy .. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Pondicherry
Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, praying to set aside the judgment
and decree dated 15.04.2021 passed in R.C.A.No.4 of 2020 on the file of the
II Additional District Judge, Puducherry, confirming the order and decreetal
order dated 16.07.2020 passed in HRCOP No.81 of 2014 on the file of the
Rent Controller-I, Puducherry.
For Petitioner : Mr. A.Tamilvanan
For Respondent : Mr. K.Sasindran
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.1431 of 2021
and CMP No.11171 of 2021
ORDER
The tenant challenges the order of eviction granted in HRCOP No.81
of 2014 and confirmed in RCA No.4 of 2020. The landlord sued for
eviction of tenant on the ground that he has committed willful default, he
has changed the user of the premises, he has denied the title of the landlord
and on the ground that the premises is required for the own occupation of
the petitioner who has retired from service.
2. The tenant resisted the claim contending that the property was
leased to him by one Abdul Rahman, on a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- and
he has paid an advance of Rs.60,000/-. The lease was reduced in writing on
01.10.2012. It is the further contention of the tenant that Adbul Rahman,
had agreed not to evict him for a period of 7 years from the date of the lease
and executed a separate deed. It is also stated that the tenant was paying
rents to Abdul Rahman regularly and whenever he failed to collect the rent,
the rent was deposited in UCO Bank, account of Adbul Rahman. Therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.1431 of 2021
and CMP No.11171 of 2021
according to the tenant there is no default.
3. It is claimed that one Muruganandham claiming to be the
representative of the petitioner verified the receipts of the respondent and
the respondent raised a bona fide doubt about the ownership of the property.
It is claimed that notice was issued by the respondent on 31.05.2014 and
that there was no reply, he had filed RCOP No.78 of 2014 seeking to
deposit the rent before the Rent Controller. The claim that there was change
of the user of the building was also denied. The requirement of the landlord
for his own occupation was termed as not bona fide.
4. At trial, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and two of his
witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 2 & 3. The respondent was examined as
R.W.1 and one Anthony was examined as R.W.2. While Exhibits P1 to P21
and X1 to X3 were marked on the side of the petitioner and Exhibits R1 to
R22 were marked on the side of the respondent.
5. The learned Rent Controller upon a consideration on the evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.1431 of 2021
and CMP No.11171 of 2021
on record found that the tenant had exhibited supine indifference in and he
has been highly irregular in payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller
concluded that the default on the part of the tenant is willful and he has
rendered himself liable for eviction on the ground of willful default. The
learned Rent Controller pointed out that the receipts produced by the
respondent would themselves show that the respondent was not regular in
payment of rent. The learned Rent Controller was in fact surprised by the
fact that the fixed deposit was made by the Bank with the following as the
Depositor’s name “Rent Controller –I A/c. R.V.Thirunavukkarasu,
Pondicherry”. The Rent Controller pointed out that such a deposit ought
not to have been made without an order of Court.
6. On the claim of the landlord that there has been a change of user of
the building, the Rent Controller found that the building was a residential
one and was leased out for residential purposes. The learned Rent
Controller also found that Ex.P12 under taking letter given by the
respondent to the Police Station, which was not denied by the respondent,
would show that the respondent had converted the building into a non-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.1431 of 2021
and CMP No.11171 of 2021
residential one and has been using it for running an office.
7. On the above findings, the learned Rent Controller concluded that
there has been a change of user of the premises. On the claim of the
landlord that he requires the premises for his personal occupation, the claim
of the tenant that the first floor of the building is vacant and therefore the
landlord can occupy the first floor was rejected because the landlord is aged
about 70 years and it is for him to choose the place where he would live and
it is not for a tenant to dictate terms. The learned Rent Controller also took
note of the various decisions of this Court on the requirement of the
landlord for personal occupation and accepted the case of the landlord. On
the above conclusions, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on all
causes. Aggrieved the tenant preferred an Appeal in RCA No.4 of 2020.
8. The learned Appellate Authority on a reconsideration of the
evidence on record concurred with the findings of the trial Court and
dismissed the Appeal. Hence the Civil Revision Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.1431 of 2021
and CMP No.11171 of 2021
9. I have heard Mr.A.Tamilvanan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.K.Sasindran, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
10. Mr.A.Tamilvanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would vehemently contend that the Rent Controller and the Appellate
Authority were not right in upholding all the grounds of eviction claimed by
the landlord. He would submit that the denial of title was bona fide and it
was made only with an intention to know the actual owner of the property.
He would point out that the tenant has shown his bona fides by depositing
the rents with the Bank and hence there was no intention to default. In the
absence of a finding that the tenant has exhibited supine indifference in
payment of rent, eviction, on the ground of willful default, ought not to have
been ordered. On the ground of change of user, the learned counsel would
point out that Ex.P12 was a letter given to the police and therefore the same
cannot form the basis for an eviction order. On the question of own use in
occupation, the learned counsel would again reiterate the contention before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.1431 of 2021
and CMP No.11171 of 2021
the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority to the effect that the first
floor of the premises is vacant, therefore the landlord can occupy the same.
11. I am unable to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel
for the petitioner. The fundamental duty of a tenant is to acknowledge the
title of the landlord and pay rents. The tenant cannot deny the title of the
landlord keep the rents in deposit in his own name and claim that he has
discharged the obligation to pay the rent. The very fact that the deposits
was made in the name of the Rent Controller without an order of the Court
would show the intentions of the petitioner/tenant. As regards the claim for
denial of title, both the Courts have come to the conclusion that the denial
of title was not bona fide and the tenant was aware of the ownership of the
landlord and the denial was only a half hearted attempt to escape eviction.
12. As regards change of user also no doubt Ex.P12 was executed
before the Police Station, but the petitioner/tenant has not denied its
execution. He has not taken the plea that it was obtained by force or
coercion. He has very categorically admitted that he is running an office in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.1431 of 2021
and CMP No.11171 of 2021
the premises. The lease document shows that the premises was let out for
residential purposes. Therefore the conclusion of the authorities that there
has been a different user of the premises cannot be faulted.
13. As regards owners occupation also the learned Appellate
Authority has found that it is for the landlord to decide where he would live
and it is not for the tenant to dictate as to where the landlord should reside.
The landlord is a French National and has retired from the service. He
intends to settle down in Pondicherry. Therefore, the tenant cannot deny the
landlord the pleasure of residing in his own house at least after retirement. I
therefore do not see any ground to interfere with the conclusions of the
Authorities below, particularly in a Revision under Section 25 of the
Pondicherry Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, where the scope of the
Revision is very limited and interference with concurrent findings can be
made only when it is shown that the findings are on the face of them illegal.
14. From an examination of the orders passed by the Authorities
under the Act, I find that there is no scope for terming the orders of eviction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.1431 of 2021
and CMP No.11171 of 2021
as illegal or irregular. Hence the Civil Revision Petition fails and it is
accordingly dismissed.
15. Mr.A.Tamilvanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would seek time to vacate. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been
in possession of the property since 2012, six (6) months time is granted to
him to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the property without
driving the landlord to execution proceedings. The tenant shall file an
affidavit undertaking to vacate on or before 31.05.2022. Such affidavit
shall be filed into this Court on or before 10.12.2021. If the affidavit is not
filed by 10.12.2021, the landlord will be free to execute the order of
eviction, as if no time has been granted by this Court. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
26.11.2021
jv
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.1431 of 2021
and CMP No.11171 of 2021
Speaking order/Non Speaking order
To
1. The II Additional District Judge,
Puducherry.
2. The Rent Controller-I,
Puducherry.
3. The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) No.1431 of 2021
and CMP No.11171 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
jv
Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.1431 of 2021
and CMP No.11171 of 2021
26.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
