Madras High Court
M.Muthu Kumar vs G.S.Sugumar on 21 September, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.14057 of 2017
M.Muthu Kumar .. Petitioner
Vs.
G.S.Sugumar .. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended Act,
against the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2017 made in R.C.A.No.2
of 2016 on the file of Sub Court, Ponneri, confirming the fair and
decretal order dated 06.11.2015 made in R.C.O.P.No.20 of 2013 on the
file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvottiyur.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.V.G.Kartheeban
For Respondent : Mr.R.Krishnaswamy
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
ORDER
(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid Mode”.)
Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment and decree
dated 20.04.2017 made in R.C.A.No.2 of 2016 on the file of Sub Court,
Ponneri, confirming the fair and decretal order dated 06.11.2015 made in
R.C.O.P.No.20 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Thiruvottiyur.
2.The petitioner is tenant in the petition premises owned by the
respondent. According to the respondent, the petitioner was inducted as a
tenant in the year 2006 on a monthly rent of Rs.3,300/- and petitioner has
agreed for increase of rent every year. After such increase every year, the
petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,500/- as monthly rent from March
2011. But the petitioner has paid only Rs.4,000/- as monthly rent and
there was arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.12,000/-, which was payable by
the petitioner. The respondent is residing in a rented house at Chrompet
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
and paying monthly rent of Rs.6,500/-. The respondent required petition
premises for his own occupation and in view of the above, he filed
R.C.O.P.No.20 of 2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Thiruvottiyur, for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful
default and owner's occupation.
3.The petitioner filed counter statement and denied all the
averments made by the respondent. According to the petitioner, the
monthly rent is only Rs.4,000/- and not Rs.4,500/- as claimed by the
respondent. The petitioner is regularly paying monthly rent and there is
no arrears of rent payable by the petitioner. When the respondent filed
R.C.O.P., on the first hearing date, the petitioner tendered rent for the
month of July 2014 and August 2014 by filing a memo. On that date, the
counsel for the respondent did not appear before the Court and on the
next hearing date, the petitioner deposited the rent for July 2014 and
August 2014 in the respondent's Bank account. The petitioner has not
committed any wilful default in payment of rent and is paying monthly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
rent regularly till date. The respondent has not stated for which period,
the petitioner defaulted in payment of rent of Rs.12,000/-. The
respondent has been demanding the petitioner to vacate the petition
premises, since the respondent wanted to sell the petition premises to
third parties and sent rowdy elements to vacate petition premises. The
petitioner sent notice dated 31.12.2011 calling upon the respondent not to
indulge in the act of evicting the petitioner without due process of law
and petitioner is ready to purchase the petition premises. The respondent
has also sent reply notice dated 11.01.2012 and in the reply notice, the
respondent admitted that the monthly rent is only Rs.4,000/-. Further, the
respondent permitted the petitioner to carry out repairs in the petition
premises and agreed to pay the expenses incurred by the petitioner. The
petitioner has spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- for repairing work. The
respondent is residing in his own house at Chrompet and only to evict the
petitioner, he has filed present R.C.O.P. and prayed for dismissal of the
R.C.O.P.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
4.Before the learned Rent Controller, the respondent examined
himself as P.W.1 and marked three documents as Exs.P1 to P3. The
petitioner examined himself as R.W.1 and marked one document as
Ex.R1.
5.The learned Rent Controller considering the pleadings,
judgments of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court, both oral and
documentary evidence, allowed the R.C.O.P. holding that the petitioner
has committed wilful default and since the respondent requires petition
premises for his own use, directed the petitioner to vacate the petition
premises, within a period of three months.
6.Against the said order dated 06.11.2015 made in R.C.O.P.No.20
of 2013, the petitioner filed R.C.A.No.2 of 2016 on the file of Sub Court,
Ponneri. The learned Appellate Authority considering the materials
placed before him, order of the learned Rent Controller and grounds of
appeal, dismissed R.C.A. and confirmed the order of the learned Rent
Controller.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
7.Against the said judgment and decree dated 20.04.2017 made in
R.C.A.No.2 of 2016, the petitioner has come out with the present Civil
Revision Petition.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that
the finding of both the learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate
Authority that the petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of
rent is erroneous and contrary to the evidence let in before the learned
Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate
Authority ought to have seen that the respondent/landlord is having
advance amount of Rs.20,000/- towards four months rent in advance
even at the time of alleged claim of arrears of rent. Both the Courts below
failed to see that the respondent/landlord did not specifically state in his
petition and proof affidavit as to which period of three months, the
petitioner/tenant has committed default. The respondent has filed and
marked Ex.P3, Bank statement, which clearly shows that on the date of
filing of R.C.O.P., there was no arrears of rent. Both the Courts below
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner has paid rent to the Bank
account of the respondent, a sum of Rs.8,000/- on 04.04.2013, another
sum of Rs.8,000/- on 18.07.2013 and Rs.8,000/- on 22.08.2013. The
Courts below erred in holding that the petitioner has committed wilful
default, when there is no pleadings in the petition filed by the respondent
that the petitioner was irregular in payment of rent by making lumpsum
payment bi-monthly. Hence, the finding of the Courts below that the
petitioner has committed wilful default by making irregular lumpsum
payment bi-monthly is erroneous. The learned counsel for the petitioner
further contended that the respondent is residing in a flat owned by his
father Subbaiah, petitioner is working in HCL at Sholinganallur, his
daughter is studying in a school at Chrompet and his son is studying in
Tambaram, the petition premises will not be convenient for the
respondent for his own occupation. In view of the above facts, claim of
the respondent that the petition premises is required for his own use is
not a valid ground. Both the Courts below without properly appreciating
the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and grounds of appeal in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
R.C.A., erroneously ordered eviction and prayed for dismissal of the
R.C.O.P. and allowing Civil Revision Petition.
9.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent made
submissions in support of the order of the learned Rent Controller,
judgment of the learned Appellate Authority and prayed for dismissal of
the Civil Revision Petition.
10.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well
as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the
entire materials on record.
11.From the materials on record, it is seen that the respondent is
the owner of the petition premises and petitioner is the tenant. According
to the respondent, from March 2011, the petitioner agreed to pay monthly
rent of Rs.4,500/-. The petitioner paid a sum of Rs.4,500/- only for
March and April 2011 and subsequently, he was paying only Rs.4,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
per month that too once in two months or three months as rent. That
payment is reflected in the Bank statement of the respondent marked as
Ex.P3. Subsequent to April 2011, the petitioner was depositing the rent to
the respondent's Bank account, the amount of Rs.8,000/- once in two
months and therefore, a sum of Rs.12,000/- has become arrears. Further,
the petitioner has also filed statement of account as Ex.R1. From the
statement of account of the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner has not
paid monthly rent regularly. He has paid lumpsum amount once in two
months or three months. The petitioner has admitted in the
cross-examination that he has paid monthly rent in lumpsum of
Rs.8,000/- once in two months. Similarly, in the grounds of appeal, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the petitioner has
paid rent only once in two months or three months. In the grounds of
revision, the petitioner has stated that he has paid rent of Rs.8,000/- on
04.04.2013, Rs.8,000/- on 18.07.2013 and Rs.8,000/- on 22.08.2013. It is
not in dispute that the tenancy is according to English calendar month
and tenant is liable to pay rent every month. When the rent is not paid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
every month, but paid in lumpsum, that amounts to wilful default.
Further, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
that the petitioner has paid an advance of Rs.20,000/- and the respondent
ought to have adjusted the arrears of rent from and out of advance
amount is without merits.
12.It is well settled that when landlord is having advance amount
in excess as contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, excess amount can be adjusted
only at request of the tenant. It is not the case of the petitioner that he
requested the respondent to adjust the arrears of rent or rent from and out
of the advance amount paid by him. The learned Rent Controller and the
learned Appellate Authority considering the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence placed before them with regard to wilful default in
proper perspective, held that the petitioner has committed default in
payment of rent. There is no error in the order of the learned Rent
Controller and the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
13.As far as the owner's occupation is concerned, the respondent
has contended that he is residing in a rented house on a monthly rent of
Rs.6,500/- at Chrompet. The petitioner has not produced any material to
show that the respondent is residing in his own house. On the other hand,
the petitioner admitted in his cross-examination that he has not produced
any material to show that the respondent is residing in his own house.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition
premises is not convenient for the respondent for residing as he is
working at Sholinganallur, his daughter is studying at Chrompet and his
son is studying at Tambaram, is without merits. It is for the landlord to
decide which premises owned by him is convenient for him and which
premises he has to occupy. A tenant like the petitioner cannot dictate
terms to the landlord. Both the Courts below have considered all the
materials in proper perspective with regard to claim of the petitioner for
owner's occupation based on the materials placed before them and
ordered eviction on these grounds also. There is no error or irregularity in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
the order of the learned Rent Controller and the judgment of the learned
Appellate Authority warranting interference by this Court.
14.For the above reasons, the Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner shall vacate and handover the petition premises to the
respondent within three months and he shall file an affidavit of
undertaking to that effect on 28.09.2021. No costs. Consequently,
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Post this matter on 28.09.2021 for filing affidavit of undertaking.
21.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
kj
To
1.The District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur.
2.The Subordinate Judge, Ponneri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
kj
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.14057 of 2017
21.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.14057 of 2017
V.M.VELUMANI, J.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this
Court by order dated 21.09.2021 dismissed the Civil Revision Petition
filed by the petitioner and at the request of the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, it is posted today for filing affidavit of undertaking to
vacate the petition premises within three months and hand over the
possession to the respondent.
2.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will
vacate and hand over the vacant possession to the respondent shortly and
hence, he is not filing the affidavit today.
3.Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, no further order is necessary in this Civil Revision Petition.
28.09.2021
gsa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
V.M.VELUMANI,J.
gsa
C.R.P.(NPD)No.2977 of 2017
and C.M.P.No.14057 of 2017
28.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
