Madras High Court
Arumugam vs Jayabal on 10 November, 2022
C.R.P.No.3039 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.21491 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
C.R.P.No.3039 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.21491 of 2021
Arumugam ... Petitioner
Vs.
Jayabal ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the
Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and Section 115
CPC against the decree and judgment dated 19.03.2021 passed by the
learned III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry in RCA No.2 of 2019 by
upholding the decree and judgment of the Rent Controller I, (Full
Additional Charge), Pondicherry in HRCOP No.46 of 2013 dated
23.01.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.Srinivasamurthy
for Mr.S.Saravana Kumar.
For Respondent : Mr.E.V. Chandru @ Chandrasekaran
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3039 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.21491 of 2021
ORDER
The present petition is filed against the decree and judgment
dated 19.03.2021 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge,
Pondicherry in RCA No.2 of 2019 by upholding the decree and judgment
of the Rent Controller I, (Full Additional Charge), Pondicherry in HRCOP
No.46 of 2013 dated 23.01.2019.
2.The petitioner is the tenant. The suit property mentioned in the
petition was owned by the respondent and was rented out to the petitioner
on a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/-. The lease was only for a period of 11
months and was for commercial purpose of running a business of electrical
and hardware shop. The lease was not further renewed. According to the
landlord who filed HRCOP No.46 of 2013 under Section 10 (2) (i) & (ii)
(b) and 10 (3) (a) (ii) & (iii) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1969 before the Rent Controller I, (Full Additional
Charge), Pondicherry, the tenant not only defaulted in payment of rents but
also used the premises for a purpose other than the agreed one and the
landlord also wanted the premises for his own use and therefore, sought
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3039 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.21491 of 2021
eviction of the tenant. It was also alleged by the landlord that the tenant at
one point of time had forged his signature to obtain permission for selling
crackers in the shop.
3.The tenant had refuted the allegations made against him and
categorically stated that he was regular in payment of rent and that the
landlord refused to accept the rents which was offered to him in the form
of demand draft and money order. It was also contended by the tenant the
rental advance obtained by him was Rs.1,50,000/- and not Rs.50,000/- as
claimed by the landlord. The tenant further averred that the electrical and
hardware business in the premises has been there since 2007 and prior to
that it was a sweet shop and subsequently a hotel and all of these were in
the knowledge of the landlord. According to him the trouble arose only
when the oral rent of Rs.300/- in 1998 was gradually increased to present
rent of Rs.5000/- and there was a demand for enhanced rent of Rs.7,500/-
which the tenant refused to pay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3039 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.21491 of 2021
4.HRCOP.No.46 of 2013 petition was allowed by the learned
Rent Controller I, (Full Additional Charge), Pondicherry, vide his orders
dated 23.01.2019, on the ground that the tenant had committed wilful
default in payment of rents. However the petition was dismissed on the
other grounds namely owner's occupation, change of use and nuisance.
5.An appeal in RCA No.2 of 2019 was filed before the learned
III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry who is also the Rent Control
Appellate Authority. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority after
going through the entire records upheld the findings of the Rent Controller
and dismissed the appeal challenging which the present Civil Revision
Petition is filed.
6.Heard Mr.Srinivasamurthy learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and Mr.E.V. Chandru @ Chandrasekaran, learned counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3039 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.21491 of 2021
appearing for the respondent.
7.Mr.Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel for the tenant / revision
petitioner would contend that there was no default in payment of rents and
it was the landlord who despite receiving the rents failed to issue rent
receipts. It was also argued that the landlord had never had the habit of
issuing rent receipts and that the landlord could have produced the receipt
book to show that he was in the habit of issuing rent receipts. It is also his
contention a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was held as rental advance by the
landlord and in case of any rental arrear he could have adjusted it from the
advance.
8.Mr.E.V. Chandru @ Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the
respondent/landlord on the other side argued that the tenant who claims to
have made payments of the rent through demand drafts and money order
ought to have proved the same by furnishing more details as to the bank
and branch from where the demand drafts were drawn and the mode
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3039 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.21491 of 2021
through which they were sent or returned as claimed in the trial Court.
However the xerox copies of the same were filed in the trial Court without
examining the bank officials. It was also argued by him that even assuming
that the landlord had refused to receive the rents the tenant ought to taken
steps calling upon the landlord to disclose his bank account details to remit
the monthly rent and then if the landlord does not heed to the request to
send the rent by money order and in case the money order is also refused
to approach the Court to deposit the rent. This is as stipulated by Section 8
of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969. But the
tenant has failed to initiate any of the steps as stipulated in the Act and
instead remitted rents in lump sum as mentioned below on receipt of legal
notices from the landlord
1. January 2011 - July 2012 Rs.90,000/- paid on 30.03.2012
2. August 2012 Rs.5,000/- paid on 30.01.2012
3. August 2012 - September Rs.85,000/- paid on 16.06.2017
4. October 2013 - April Rs.2,15,000/- paid on 16.06.2017
It was also pointed out that the rents from May 2017 to till date were not
paid at all apart from not paying the rent for the period October 2010 -
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3039 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.21491 of 2021
December 2010 despite the legal notice 23.04.2011 (Ex.P3) demanding
the same. Therefore, he would contend that default in payment of rent is
wilful and is very much evident and therefore the same cannot be simply
brushed aside.
8.Section 8 of the Puducherry Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1969 is extracted below
(1) Every landlord who receives any payment towards rent or
advance shall issue a receipt duly signed by him for the
actual amount of rent or advance received by him].
(2) Where a landlord refuses to accept or evades the receipt
of any rent lawfully payable to him by a tenant in respect of
any building, the tenant may, by notice in writing, require the
landlord to specify within ten days from the date of receipt of
the notice by him, a bank into which the rent may be
deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlord:
Provided that such bank shall be one situated in the
Commune in which the building is situated or if there is no
such bank in such Commune, the nearest bank.
Explanation. – It shall be open to the landlord to specify from
time to time by written notice to the tenant and subject to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3039 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.21491 of 2021
proviso aforesaid, a bank different from the one already
specified by him under this sub-section.
(3) If the landlord specifies a bank as aforesaid, the tenant
shall deposit the rent in the bank and shall continue to
deposit in it any rent which may be subsequently become due
in respect of the building.
(4) If the landlord does not specify a bank as aforesaid, the
tenant shall remit the rent to the landlord by money order,
after deducting the money order commission.
(5) If the landlord refuses to receive the rent remitted by
money order under sub-section (4), the tenant may deposit
the rent before the Controller and continue to deposit with
him any rent which may subsequently become due in respect
of the building. "
It can easily be deciphered that the tenant was in the habit of committing
default in payment of rents and had not initiated any steps to follow the
statutory provisions of Section 8 as laid down in the said Act. The tenant
also did not pay rents for the period October 2010 to December 2010
despite the issuance of notice dated 23.04.2011 (Ex.P3) by the landlord.
Moreover, the demand drafts were not sent by the tenants immediately
after the landlord refused to receive the rents. A perusal of the demand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3039 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.21491 of 2021
drafts shows that they were sent after a lapse of 18 months or so. It is also
seen from the records that the tenant did not pay the rental arrears even on
the first hearing of the case. The tenant did not adduce sufficient evidence
to show that the advance amount was Rs.1,50,000/- and not Rs.50,000/-.
As per law the landlord is not entitled to hold more than a month's rent
towards advance. However the tenant had sent the arrears of rent of
Rs.40,000/- in one lump sum through a demand draft along with the notice
Ex.R1 which is the rent for the period from January 2011 to July 2012.
The tenant was afforded full opportunity before the rent controller as well
as before the Rent Control Appellate Authority to show his bonafides.
Even after the filing of the RCOP the tenant did not pay rents. It is true the
he had been a tenant for quite a long period and he should have conducted
himself in such a manner as to respect the long standing relationship with
the landlord by being prompt in payment of rents. Instead he failed in his
duty to pay the rent regularly and has put the landlord in an unenviable
position as to seek his eviction due to wilful default in payment of rent.
None of the records adduced by him in the trial Court supports his case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3039 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.21491 of 2021
and I do not see any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by both
the Courts below .
9.Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
10.11.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
mtl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.3039 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.21491 of 2021
R. HEMALATHA, J.
mtl
To
1.The III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.
2.The Rent Controller I, (Full Additional Charge), Pondicherry.
3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
C.R.P.No.3039 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.21491 of 2021
10.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
