Madras High Court
G.Mangaram vs V.V.S.Prasad on 31 January, 2022
CRP(NPD)No.134 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 31.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
CRP(NPD)No.134 of 2022 and
CMP.No.732 of 2022
G.Mangaram ... Petitioner
Vs
V.V.S.Prasad ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25(1) of Tamil Nadu
Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, against the order dated 26.11.2021
passed in R.C.A.No.413 of 2017 on the file of the VIII Court of Small
Causes which confirmed the order dated 07.04.2017 passed in
RCOP.No.551 of 2013 CNR.No.TNCH09-004911-2017 on the file of XII
Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Petitioner :Mrs.C.Uma
ORDER
Challenge in this revision is to the order of the eviction passed by
the authorities constituted under the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, on the ground that the tenant has committed default in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(NPD)No.134 of 2022
payment of rent. The landlord sued for eviction claiming that the tenant has
not paid the rents from June 2008 onwards. While admitting the tenancy and
the rent payable, the tenant would contend that he had entered into an
agreement of sale with the siblings of the landlord and under the said
agreement, he has agreed to purchase the property for Rs.68,00,000/- and
has paid an advance of Rs.10,00,000/-. Therefore, according to him, there is
no relationship of landlord and tenant and as such the proceedings under the
Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act are not maintainable.
2.The learned Rent Controller, on consideration of the contents of
the agreement of sale dated 06.02.2008 projected by the respondent
concluded that the agreement does not have the effect of snapping the
relationship of landlord and tenant. The agreement very specifically states
that the tenant shall continue to pay rents still execution of the sale deed and
the balance of consideration shall be paid within three months. The
consequence of failure to pay the balance within three months is also set out
in the agreement. It says that if the purchaser fails to pay the balance on or
before 07.05.2008 and get a sale deed, the agreement will become null and
void and the vendor will repay the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- without interest. It
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(NPD)No.134 of 2022
is therefore clear that the transaction between the parties as far as the sale is
concerned was independent of the tenancy. Upon such a finding, the learned
trial Judge found that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent
and ordered eviction. Aggrieved, the tenant preferred an appeal in
RCA.No.413 of 2017. The learned appellate authority re-considered the
evidence on record and agreed with the conclusions of the trial Court.
3.The learned appellate authority has also taken note of the
judgment of this Court in S.Gurumurthy vs. N.Raman reported in 2007 (2)
CTC 326, wherein this Court has held that an advance paid under a sale
agreement will not operate as advance under Section 7 of the Tamilnadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and therefore, the tenant cannot
seek adjustment of the advance paid under an agreement of sale. Reference
was also made to the judgment of this Court in Jessie Thavamani vs.
Liakath Basha reported in 1996 (1) CTC 398, wherein this Court held that
unless the agreement contains the clause which will have the effect of
snapping the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The
landlord can always invoke the provisions of the Tamilnadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act for eviction of the tenant who had entered into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(NPD)No.134 of 2022
an agreement.
4.Reference was also made S.Venkatesulu vs. V.Chandra and 2
others reported in 1997 (3) CTC 39. The appellate Court also considered the
evidence of the tenant wherein the tenant has accepted that he has to pay the
rent and he has not paid the rent from the date of the agreement. Therefore,
the fact that the tenant has not paid the rent and he has committed default in
payment of rent is admitted.
5.Before the appellate authority, the tenant had contended that he
had filed a suit for specific performance in the year 2016, that by itself will
not relieve the tenant of the obligation to pay rents. I find that the authorities
under the Act have considered the entire evidence on record and reached a
just conclusion. I do not think this case warrants interference and
particularly in exercise of the revisional powers under Section 25, the
revision therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
31.01.2022
vs
Index: No
Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(NPD)No.134 of 2022
To:
1.The VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The XII Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP(NPD)No.134 of 2022
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
vs
CRP(NPD)No.134 of 2022 and
CMP.No.732 of 2022
31.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
