Madras High Court
S.Natarajan vs P.Sukumar on 22 October, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(NPD)No.4625 of 2015
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
S.Natarajan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.P.Sukumar
2.N.Jamunarani .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1960, against the fair and
decreetal order dated 24.02.2015 made in R.C.A.No.19 of 2014 on the
file of the Principal Sub Court, Salem (Rent Control Appellate
Authority), confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 22.09.2014
made in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District
Munsif, Salem (Rent Controller).
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
For Petitioner : Mr.T.T.Ravichandran
For Respondents : Mr.T.Murugamanickam (For R1)
Senior Counsel
for M/s.A.Murughan
Mr.M.Balasubramanian (For R2)
ORDER
(The matter is heard through 'video conferencing/hybrid mode')
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal
order dated 24.02.2015 made in R.C.A.No.19 of 2014 on the file of the
Principal Sub Court, Salem (Rent Control Appellate Authority),
confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 22.09.2014 made in
R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem
(Rent Controller).
2.The petitioner is 1st respondent in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2012 on the
file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem (Rent Controller). The 1st
respondent filed the said R.C.O.P. for eviction of the petitioner and 2nd
respondent/wife of the petitioner, on the ground of wilful default and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
owner's occupation. According to the 1st respondent, originally, one
Karuppanna Pillai was owner of petition premises. He leased out the
petition premises to the petitioner for non-residential purposes. The
petitioner and 2nd respondent were carrying on Gunny Bag business. The
said Karuppanna Pillai sold the petition property by a deed of sale dated
06.08.1999 to the 1st respondent. According to the 1st respondent, he met
the petitioner and 2nd respondent in August, 1999 itself and informed
them about the purchase of petition premises by the 1st respondent and
requested them to vacate the petition premises and till that time, to pay
the rent to the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent filed suit in O.S.No.368
of 1999, for specific performance of agreement of sale and for permanent
injunction, contending that the said Karuppanna Pillai entered into an
agreement of sale. After contest, the said suit was dismissed on merits by
the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2006, with regard to relief of
specific performance and refund of advance amount of Rs.1,40,000/-
only was ordered. The petitioner has not paid monthly rent of Rs.700/- to
the 1st respondent from the date of purchase i.e., on 06.08.1999, even
after dismissal of First Appeal by the Principal District Judge, Salem in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
A.S.No.74 of 2006 on 25.06.2007 and dismissal of Second Appeal in
S.A.No.1260 of 2007 by this Court on 26.08.2011.The petitioner
deliberately committed wilful default in payment of rent.
2(i) Further, the 1st respondent, along with his mother and brother
viz., Mohanraj, was carrying on Silver Articles business in a rented
building at D.No.172, Shevapet Main Road Shevapet, Salem -2 and the
1st respondent is not owning any non-residential building in Salem or
elsewhere. The petition premises is required for his own Silver Articles
business. In such circumstances, the 1st respondent issued notice dated
13.01.2012 to the petitioner and 2nd respondent, through his Advocate.
The 2nd respondent alone sent a reply dated 03.02.2012. The petitioner
did not send any reply or vacate the petition premises. Hence, the 1 st
respondent filed the said R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2012, for eviction of the
petitioner and 2nd respondent on the ground of wilful default and owner's
occupation.
3.The petitioner filed counter statement, which was adopted by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
2nd respondent. The petitioner has denied that they committed wilful
default in payment of rent. The petitioner stated in the counter statement
that he was paying the rent to Karuppanna Pillai, pending suit and
subsequently to his sons. The Second Appeal filed by the 2 nd respondent
was dismissed by this Court only on 26.08.2011. Till such dismissal,
there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the 1st respondent and
petitioner. The 2nd respondent agreed to purchase the petition premises
from Karuppanna Pillai and entered into an agreement. She was ready
and willing to perform her part of the contract, but the sons of the
Karuppanna Pillai coerced Karuppanna Pillai to execute the sale deed in
favour of the 1st respondent. The petitioner is running Gunny Bag
business at petition premises in Leigh Bazaar, Salem. In that place only,
the grains and Gunny Bag business is carried on. The said place and the
petition premises are not suitable for carrying on Silver Articles business.
The 1st respondent is carrying on Silvery Articles business in D.No.172,
Shevapet Main Road, Salem – 2. The 1st respondent has made allegation
that he requires petition premises for his Silver Articles business, only
with a view to evict the petitioner by hook and crook method and prayed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
for dismissal of R.C.O.P.
4.The learned Rent Controller, considering the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence, allowed R.C.O.P., directing the petitioner and 2nd
respondent to vacate the petition premises and handover the vacant
possession to the 1st respondent within a period of two months from the
date of that order.
5.Against the said order dated 22.09.2014 made in R.C.O.P.No.10
of 2012, the petitioner and 2nd respondent filed R.C.A.No.19 of 2014.
The learned Appellate Authority, considering the order of the learned
Rent Controller and grounds of appeal, dismissed the R.C.A, by the
judgment and decree dated 24.02.2015.
6.Against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority dated
24.02.2015 made in R.C.A.No.19 of 2014 and order of the learned Rent
Controller dated 22.09.2014 made in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2012, the
petitioner has come out with the present Civil Revision Petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
Courts below failed to consider that 1st respondent did not comply with
the ingredients of Section 10 (2)(a)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter, referred to as
'the Act'). The 1st respondent has not given any details of default, much
less wilful default. The 1st respondent has not told his bonafide
requirement as contemplated under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act.
Therefore, the Courts below ought not to have entertained the petition
filed by the 1st respondent for eviction on the ground of bonafide
requirement for own use. The 1st respondent failed to prove that he does
not own any non-residential building within Salem Corporation limit,
except marking fabricating documents as Exs.P12 and P13. Silver
Articles business cannot be done in the locality of Leigh Bazaar, where
the petition premises is situated. The Courts below failed to see that the
1st respondent did not prove that Ex.P12 is used for non-residential
purpose. The Courts below failed to see the 2nd respondent, wife of the
petitioner entered into an agreement of sale dated 12.05.1996 with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
landlord, to purchase the petition premises and paid Rs.1,40,000/- as
advance. In view of the said agreement, title of the 2nd respondent is
bonafide. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further
submitted that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as advance to the
landlord on 01.01.1990 and paid property tax with consent of original
landlord and spent considerable amount for developing the petition
premises. The said amount ought to have been adjusted for the rent due
from 06.02.1999. Hence, the order of eviction cannot be sustained. Till
the disposal of the suit for specific performance and the Second Appeal
in S.A.No.1260 of 2007, the question of payment of rent does not arise
and the 1st respondent cannot be termed as a wilful defaulter. As per the
judgment in O.S.No.368 of 1999, the suit was not dismissed in its
entirety, but the relief of specific performance alone was dismissed and
the defendants 2 to 9 therein were directed to refund Rs.1,40,000/-, paid
as advance by the 2nd respondent, together with interest. The said amount
ought to have been adjusted for rent, which is Rs.8,400/- per year, from
and out of the said amount or from the interest payable on Rs.1,40,000/-,
instead of ordering eviction. The sale deed under which the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
respondent claims title is forged one and therefore, the 1 st respondent
cannot maintain the petition for eviction. The learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner further submitted that the 1st respondent issued notice
dated 13.01.2012, but filed R.C.O.P. on 29.02.2012, within two months,
violating the provisions, as contemplated by the Act and therefore, there
is no default much less wilful default.
8.In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner relied on the following judgments:
(i) 1996 AIR (SC) 1214 [K.Narasimha Rao Vs. T.M.Nasimuddin
Ahmed]:
“7..................The character or the excess amount
undoubtedly is that it is the tenant's money in the hands of the
landlord for return to the tenant or for adjustment towards the
dues of the tenant's at the tenant's option. Any other stipulation
in contravention to it has no legal effect being null and void.
..............
13.In the present case, excluding from consideration the
tenant's claim for adjustment of the amount of Rs.1000/- spent
on repairs and the amount of Rs.750/- sent by demand draft on
receipt of the notice, the amount of Rs.2850/- with the landlord
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
as the excess amount of advance paid by the tenant to the
landlord, was alone sufficient to negative the landlord's claim of
ejectment. The arrears of rent from July to November 1990 was
only Rs.750/- , while the excess amount of advance was
Rs.2850/-, far in excess of the arrears. The landlord was bound
to immediately refund that excess amount even before the arrears
accrued, and he not having made the refund was bound to adjust
it towards the rent due from the tenant. On these facts, the tenant
could certainly not be held to be a willful defaulter in the
payment of rent. The High Court is, therefore, right in deciding
against the landlord.”
(ii) (2000) 9 SCC 339 [R.Kanthimathi and another Vs. Beatrice
Xavier]:
“6. Any jural relationship between two persons could be
created through agreement and similarly could be changed
through agreement subject to the limitations under the law.
Earlier when appellants were inducted into tenancy it only
means both agreed that their relations is to be that of a landlord
and tenant. Later when landlord decides to sell this property to
the tenant and tenant agreed by entering into agreement they by
their positive act changed their relationship as purchaser and
seller. When seller-landlord accepts sum he actually acts under
this agreement. This acceptance preceded by agreement of sale
changes their relationship. This is how they intended. Once
accepting such a change then their relationship of landlord
tenant ceases.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
(iii) (2003) 10 SCC 610 [P.M.Punnoose Vs. K.M.Munneruddin
and another]:
“13.The explanation appended to sub-Section (2) of
section 10 if the Act enacts a rule of evidence. After the issuance
of two month's notice claiming the rent, the default by tenant
shall be construed as willful raising a presumption in that regard
and it will be for the tenant to show availability of sufficient
cause or circumstances beyond his control to escape from the
consequence of default. The landlord is not prevented from
initiating proceedings for eviction on the ground of default under
Section 10(2) (1) of the Act, without serving a notice under the
Explanation but in that case it will be for the landlord to make
out a case of wilful default by tenant failing which the Controller
may exercise his discretion under the proviso giving the tenant a
reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days for payment or
tender.
.............
16.There appears to be a bona-fide dispute as to the
quantum of arrears, that is, as to what was the exact amount of
rent paid by the tenant appellant to the landlord-respondents and
consequent upon which payment the liability for how many
number of months came to be extinguished. The facts found
indicate the tenant-appellant remitting the amount of rent by
money orders before and after and even during the pendency of
the proceedings and some of the money orders having been
refused by the landlord - respondents. The present one is a fit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
case where the Controller should have exercised his power under
proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 10 of the Act by passing an
order thereunder and giving the tenants-appellant a reasonable
time, not exceeding 15 days, to pay or tender the rent due by him
to the landlord upto the date of such payments of rent. If such
order was complied with by the appellant-tenant, then the
application for eviction should have been rejected. The learned
Controller has erred in not passing that order.”
(iv) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the
judgment reported in (2000) 1 SCC 451 [C.Chandramohan Vs.
Sengottaiyan (dead), rep. By legal heirs and others] and submitted that
the 1st respondent did not specify the amount of default and therefore, the
petition is not maintainable.
9.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent
contended that original owner did not inform the 1st respondent about
pendency of the suit, while selling the petition premises to the 1st
respondent. After decree in O.S.No.368 of 1999, directing the refund of
advance amount paid by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent deposited
the said amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to the credit of the suit, even though the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
1st respondent has paid entire sale consideration to the defendants 2 to 8
in O.S.No.368 of 1999. The 2nd respondent could have taken the amount
from the Court deposit. The petitioner ought to have verified whether the
1st respondent has deposited the advance amount as directed by the Trial
Court in O.S.No.368 of 1999. The 1st respondent informed the petitioner
as well as 2nd respondent about his purchase in August, 1999 itself and
called upon them to vacate and handover the petition premises and pay
the rent to him till they vacate the petition premises. The petitioner has
stated that he was regularly paying the rent to Karuppanna Pillai and
subsequently to his sons, the defendants 2 to 8 in O.S.No.368 of 1999.
Contrary to the said statement, the petitioner has come out with a new
case that the 2nd respondent, being an agreement holder, need not pay the
rent. Further, the petitioner, now admitting non-payment of rent, claimed
that the 1st respondent ought to have adjusted all the rent payable from
and out of advance amount directed to be refunded to the 2nd respondent.
These contentions clearly show that the petitioner has committed wilful
default in payment of rent. The 1st respondent has proved that he is
carrying on Silver Articles business in partnership in a rented building.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
The 1st respondent has stated that he does not own any non-residential
building in Salem city or anywhere else. The petitioner failed to prove
that the 1st respondent is owning a non-residential building in Salem city
or anywhere else. It is for the landlord to chose the premises to carry on
his business and tenant cannot dictate terms that said premises is not
convenient to carry on Silver Article business of 1st respondent/landlord.
The Courts below have considered all the materials placed before it and
ordered eviction and there is no reason to interfere with the same and
prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.
10.In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the 1st respondent relied on the following judgments:
(i)VOL 64 LW 396 [Lingambhotla Vs. Sub Judge, Vijayawada]:
“...................It may be that, the landlord was not
insisting on regular payments & was accepting without protest
arrears of rent which had accumulated ; but when he choose a to
apply Under Section 7 of the Act, he will be entitled to an order
of eviction if he can prove that the tenant has not paid or
tendered the rent by the last day of the month nest following that
for which the rent is payable. It is not suggested that the tenancy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
was not a monthly tenancy; therefore, the rent for each month
was payable before the last day of the month next following.
Both the Rent Controller & the Appellate Tribunal have found
that there was default in payment of rent according to this
provision. They ought to have, therefore, passed an order of
eviction. The orders of the Bent Controller & the Appellate
Tribunal are quashed & there will be an order for eviction in
favour of the petitioner.”
(ii) 2018 (2) MWN (Civil) 528 [Deepak Parekh Vs. Uma
Maheswari]:
“20..............The contention of the petitioners that there
was no order directing the petitioners to pay arrears of rent by
this Court and the petitioners voluntarily paid the rent, is not
correct. When M.P.Nos.1 of 2014 in Civil Revision Petition
Nos.4877, 4879 and 4881 of 2014 for stay were taken up for
hearing on 18.12.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioners
tendered three demand drafts. This Court by order dated
18.12.2014 directed the petitioners to pay arrears if any within
two weeks. The petitioners have not complied with the said order
within time granted by this Court. However, from the materials
on record, it is seen that the petitioners have not paid monthly
rent even during pendency of the R.C.As. as well as pendency of
the Civil Revision Petitions............
..............
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
22.The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the Appellate Authority ought to have granted
time for payment of arrears of rent is untenable. From the
beginning, the petitioners have not paid rent in spite of the
demands made by the respondents as well as the order of the
learned Rent Controller. In view of the said attitude, the learned
Appellate Authority has rightly dismissed the appeals without
granting time. The petitioners have failed to comply with the
order of the learned Rent Controller directing them to pay the
arrears of rent and therefore, the learned Rent Controller
stopped the proceedings and ordered eviction of the respondents
and the said order is valid and as per law, which is rightly
confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. There is no error
in the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2014 passed by the
learned Appellate Authority.”
(iii) 2012 (6) CTC 557 [Sulochana Vs. Pangajam]:
“10. Further, it is not her case that she was paying the
rent continuously to Mr.Ravi even after receipt of notice. As
stated supra, from September 1997, she has not paid the rent
either to the erstwhile landlord viz., Mr.Ravi or to the
respondents herein and she was keeping the rent with herself and
filed R.C.O.P.No.44 of 1999 only in the month of February 1999,
after the respondents filed petition for eviction in R.C.O.P.No.11
of 1998. Further, even during the pendency of the eviction
petition filed by the landlord and even during the pendency of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
the application filed by the tenant to deposit the rent, she was not
regular in depositing the rent in court and she was depositing the
rent only in lumpsum and that was considered by both the courts
below and it was held that the default is wilful and on that
ground, eviction was ordered. As a matter of fact, the lower
appellate court elaborately discussed the conduct of the revision
petitioner in committing default in payment of rent to arrive at a
conclusion that the default is nothing but wilful and the tenant
was not regular in depositing the rent before the court below.
11. In the judgment reported in 1999 (3) MLJ 691, this
court has held that the default committed by the tenant even after
issuance of notice is deemed to be wilful default. In the judgment
in PRAMOD WILSON,T. v. DR.HARI RAMESH (1999 (I) CTC
372), it has been held that the deposit of arrears of rent pursuant
to the order passed by the Rent Controller will not erase the
wilful default committed by the tenant. In the judgment reported
in (2008) 1 MLJ 963 it has been held that there is no need to
attorn the tenancy and when the landlords are the owners of the
building and the tenant admitted the tenancy, even though there
is no attornment, the tenant will have to pay rent and failure on
the part of the tenant to pay the rent will amount to wilful
default. In that judgment, the learned Judge relied upon the
judgment in MOHAR SINGH (DEAD BY L.Rs. v. DEVI
CHARAN AND OTHERS (AIR 1988 SC 1365) wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as per the provisions
of section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, the assignee of a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
part of the reversion is entitled to exercise all the rights of the
landlord in respect of the portion of which, reversion was so
assigned and there is no need for a consensual attornment and
the attornment is brought about by operation of law. Therefore,
the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner
that there was no attornment of tenancy and therefore, there is
no landlord and tenancy relationship cannot be accepted.”
11.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent as well as the learned
counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and perused the entire materials
available on record.
12.From the materials on record, it is seen that the petition
premises was originally owned by Karuppanna Pillai. The petitioner was
tenant under the said Karuppanna Pillai on monthly rent, carrying on
Gunny Bag business. The 1st respondent purchased the property from
Karuppanna Pillai, by the deed of sale dated 06.08.1999. The said sale
deed is marked as Ex.P1, before the learned Rent Controller. According
to the 1st respondent, he met the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
the month of August, 1999 itself and informed about his purchase and
asked them to vacate the petition premises, deliver the vacant possession
and pay the rent to him, till they vacate the petition premises. According
to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent, who is wife of the petitioner, was an
agreement holder with Karuppanna Pillai to purchase the petition
premises. She filed O.S.No.368 of 1999 for specific performance against
the said Karuppanna Pillai and 8 others. The 1st respondent is 9th
defendant in the said suit. This reveals that the petitioner knew about the
purchase of the petition premises by the 1st respondent. The suit filed by
the 2nd respondent for specific performance was dismissed, but the Trial
Court directed the defendants 2 to 9 to deposit the advance amount of
Rs.1,40,000/- paid by the 2nd respondent to Karuppanna Pillai. The First
Appeal and Second Appeal filed by the 2nd respondent were dismissed,
confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. The petitioner, in his cross-
examination, admitted that he did not pay rent to the 1st respondent, as
the 1st respondent did not demand. At the same time, the petitioner has
stated that he has paid rent to Karuppanna Pillai and after death of
Karuppanna Pillai, he paid rent to his sons. These contentions are not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
acceptable, as the petitioner knew about purchase of the petition premises
by the 1st respondent when they impleaded the 1st respondent as 9th
defendant in the suit. Further, the petitioner has not filed any document to
show that rents were paid to Karuppanna Pillai and subsequent to death
of Karuppanna Pillai, to his sons. The petitioner has taken contradictory
statement to the effect that they asked Karuppanna Pillai to adjust the
advance amount of Rs.1,40,000/- paid by the 2nd respondent towards rent
payable by him. The petitioner has not produced any document to show
that he requested Karuppanna Pillai to adjust the rent payable from and
out of the advance amount paid by him. This is not the case of the
petitioner before the learned Rent Controller or the learned Appellate
Authority.
12(i) Another contradictory stand taken by the petitioner is that
after receipt of notice dated 13.01.2012, issued by the 1st respondent, the
petitioner tendered rent to the 1st respondent, but he refused to receive the
same. The learned Rent Controller has rightly held that if really the 1 st
respondent refused to receive the rent. The petitioner ought to have taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
steps as per Section 8 of the Act to get order to deposit the rent into the
Court. The learned Rent Controller also took note of the fact that even
during pendency of R.C.O.P., the petitioner did not pay the rent. From the
materials on record, it is seen that even though the petitioner has taken a
stand that till disposal of the Second Appeal, the 1st respondent has not
become the landlord, the petitioner has not paid the rent even after
dismissal of S.A.No.1260 of 2007 on 26.08.2011. The learned Rent
Controller, considered all these facts and held that the petitioner
committed wilful default. The learned Appellate Authority, considering
all the materials, pleading and order of the learned Rent Controller,
ordered eviction of the petitioner and 2nd respondent and held that they
have committed wilful default. The learned Appellate Authority has also
took note of the fact that the petitioner has not paid the rent even during
pendency of R.C.A. and confirmed the order of the learned Rent
Controller with regard to wilful default. There is no error in the order of
the learned Rent Controller as well as the judgment of the learned
Appellate Authority, warranting interference by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
13.As far as owner's occupation is concerned, the 1st respondent
has stated that he is carrying on Silver Articles business at D.No.172,
Shevapet Main Road, Shevapet, Salem, in a rented premises, along with
his mother and brother, in a partnership. The 1st respondent has also
stated that he is not owning any non-residential building within Salem
city or in any other place. The 1st respondent produced Exs.P12 and P13,
lease agreement and rent receipts paid by him to his landlord and proved
that he is carrying on business in a rented premises. The petitioner has
denied the claim of the 1st respondent that he is not owning any
immovable property for non-residential building. When the petitioner has
taken such a stand, it is for him to prove that the 1 st respondent is owning
another non-residential building and claim of the 1st respondent is not
bonafide.
13(i) Both the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned
Appellate Authority considered the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence in proper perspective and held that the requirement of the
petition premises by the 1st respondent, for his Silver Articles business is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
bonafide. The Courts below also rightly held that it is for the landlord to
decide which premises is suitable for him to do business and it is not for
the tenant to dictate which premises will be suitable for the landlord's
business. In view of the above facts, the judgments relied on by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner do not advance the case of
the petitioner.
13(ii) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the 1st respondent could have adjusted the rent payable by
the 1st respondent from and out of the sum of Rs.1,40,000/- or interest
payable for the said amount and therefore, there is no default much less
wilful default in payment of rent, is without merits. The learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the 1st respondent
has deposited a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as directed by the Trial Court to the
credit of O.S.No.368 of 1999 and the said contention was not disputed by
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Further, the petitioner
has not given any instructions to adjust the rent payable by him from and
out of the advance amount of Rs.1,40,000/-. Without any instruction by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
the petitioner or 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent cannot deduct the rent
payable by the petitioner, from and out of Rs.1,40,000/-.
13(iii) Considering the entire materials, the petitioner has not made
out any case for interfering with the order of the learned Rent Controller
as well as the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority. Both the
learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Authority have
given cogent and valid reason for ordering eviction. There is no error or
irregularity in the order and judgment of the learned Rent Controller and
learned Appellate Authority respectively, warranting interference by this
Court.
In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
22.10.2021
Index :: Yes/No
gsa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge,
(Rent Control Appellate Authority),
Salem.
2.The Principal District Munsif,
(Rent Controller),
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
gsa
C.R.P.(PD).No.4625 of 2015
22.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
