Madras High Court
Senthil vs Rajalakshmi on 30 November, 2021
C.R.P(PD)(MD) No.2436 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P(PD) (MD)No.2436 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD) No.11627 of 2017
Senthil ... Petitioner
Vs.
Ramachandran (died)
Trust Secretary
Aarani (Festival Trust)
Rajalakshmi ... Respondent
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18/60, to set aside the
order passed in R.C.A.No.21 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control
Appellate Authority cum Principal Sub Court, Madurai dated 11.09.2017
confirming the judgment and decree in R.C.O.P.No.339 of 2004 dated
30.03.2012 on the file of Rent Controller cum Additional District
Munsif, Madurai Town.
________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)(MD) No.2436 of 2017
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Pon Karthikeyan
For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
The tenant is the revision petitioner before this Court challenging
the concurrent orders of eviction passed against him.
2.The facts in brief are as follows:-
(i) The respondent/landlord had filed RCOP No.399 of 2004 on the
file of the Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif), Madurai, seeking
eviction of the tenant on the grounds of wilful default, demolition and
reconstruction and owners occupation.
(ii) It is the case of the respondent/landlord that the petitioner
herein had become a tenant in respect of a portion of Door No.272 and
the lease was for non-residential purpose and the monthly rent was fixed
at a sum of Rs.1,000/-. The landlord would submit that right from the
inception of the lease, the tenant has been highly irregular in the payment
of rents and after August 2001, the tenant had not come forward to make
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)(MD) No.2436 of 2017
any payment. The property, which was in a dilapidated stage, had
become uninhabitable. The landlord would further submit that he
required the premises to use it as a pooja mandapam for the purpose of
doing annathanam service. Therefore, he has sought for the eviction of
the tenant on all the three grounds.
(iii)The case of the petitioner/tenant was that he had been inducted
into tenancy of the demised premises in the month of October 1973 on a
monthly rent of Rs.65/- which had been gradually increased to sum of
Rs.1,000/-. He had paid the rent upto September 2001 and in the month
of November 2001, when he had tendered the rent for October 2001, the
landlord refused to receive the rent and insisted upon the tenant vacating
the premises and handing over the peaceful possession to them.
Thereafter, the tenant had sent the rent by money order, which was also
refused by the landlord. He would therefore submit that he had not
committed any default. Further, he had denied the contention of the
landlord that the building was in uninhabitable stage and also that the
premises was required for own use and occupation of the landlord.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)(MD) No.2436 of 2017
(iv)The learned Rent Controller on considering the evidence on
record and the documents, dismissed the Rent Control Petition with
reference to owner occupation, demolition and reconstruction, but
however held that the tenant is guilty of wilful default and consequently
directed his eviction. Challenging the said order, the tenant had filed
R.C.A.No.21 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority
(Principal Subordinate Court), Madurai. The landlord had not challenged
the dismissal of his Rent Control Petition on the ground of owners
occupation, demolition and reconstruction. The Appellate Authority by
his order dated 11.09.2007, confirmed the order of the Rent Controller.
Challenging the same, the revision petitioner is before this court.
3.Mr.R.Pon Karthikeyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner/tenant would contend that the Court below, particularly,
the Appellate Court had failed to consider the fact that arrears of rent was
paid by the tenant in two lumpsums during the pendency of the appeal
proceedings and therefore, there is no wilful default on the part of the
tenant. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority had failed
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)(MD) No.2436 of 2017
to appreciate the fact that the landlord had deliberately refused to receive
the rents in order to claim that the tenant is guilty of wilful default and
thereby, liable to be evicted from the premises.
4.The learned counsel appearing on the side of the respondent,
denying the contentions of the petitioner, had submitted that both the
Courts below have concurrently held the tenant to be guilty of default
and has also held default to be a wilful one. This Court sitting in revision
under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control
Act, should not overturn this concurrent findings of fact.
5.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.
6.The defence put forwarded by the tenant with reference to the
eviction on the ground of wilful default is that the landlord had refused to
receive the rents from him, despite tendering the same. He would also
contend that the tenant had initially submitted the rent through money
order, which was also refused by the landlord and therefore, he is not
guilty of a wilful default, although there is a default on his side.
However, the tenant has not taken any steps to invoke the provision of
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)(MD) No.2436 of 2017
Sections 8 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control
Act to deposit the rent into Court, when the landlord had refused to
receive the rents. No doubt, he has taken steps to send the rents by
money order, however he has not followed up the other procedures
contemplated under the Act. That apart, even according to the
tenant/revision petitioner, the arrears of rent has been paid only during
the pendency of the rent control appeal, which is evident from the
reading of grounds 2 and 3 of the civil revision petition. Therefore, the
revision petitioner/ tenant is guilty of wilful default and I do not see any
reason to interfere with the well considered judgments and decrees of the
authorities below.
7.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.11.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
cp
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)(MD) No.2436 of 2017
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To:-
1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority
cum Principal Sub Court,
Madurai.
2.The Rent Controller cum
Additional District Munsif,
Madurai Town.
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(PD)(MD) No.2436 of 2017
P.T.ASHA, J.
cp
C.R.P(PD) (MD)No.2436 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD) No.11627 of 2017
30.11.2021
________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
