Madras High Court
R.Shabraj Devi vs S.D.Gunasekaran on 22 December, 2023
Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi
C.R.P.No.5003 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.R.P.No.5003 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.29205 of 2023
R.Shabraj Devi ... Petitioner
-Vs-
S.D.Gunasekaran ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960, praying to set aside the
decree and judgment dated 19.10.2023 passed in R.C.A.No.698 of 2017
by the Hon'ble IX Small Causes Court at Chennai and reverse the fair and
decreetal order dated 24.07.2017 passed in R.C.O.P.No.2409 of 2012 by
the Hon'ble X Small Causes Court at Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Gavaskar
For Respondents : Mr.V.Sivakumar
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.5003 of 2023
ORDER
Challenging the judgment and decree made in R.C.A.No.698 of
2017 passed by learned IX Court of Small Causes at Chennai confirming
the fair and decreetal order in R.C.O.P.No.2409 of 2012 by the learned X
Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the Revision Petitioner/tenant
preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the leaned
IX Small Causes Court at Chennai has failed to consider that the tenancy
was renewed from 01.01.2008 to 30.11.2006, thereafter the tenancy was
renewed and the alleged written rental agreement dated 01.12.2006 has
not executed by the petitioner and as such the petitioner has not liable to
pay the alleged enhancement of 10% rent to the Respondent for the
Petition premises. The petitioner has been regularly paying the contractual
rent to the Respondent without any default in the Payment of rent for the
petitioner premises. Therefore the petitioner has not committed the alleged
willful default in payment of rent as alleged by the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. He would further submit that, the learned IX Small Causes Court
at Chenni has failed to consider that the petitioner has not admitted and
deny the alleged execution of the Rental agreement dated 01.12.2006 and
the Respondent has claimed the alleged enhancement of 10% rent under
the alleged rental agreement dated 01.12.2006 and as such the Respondent
has to prove the execution of the alleged rental agreement dated
01.12.2006 which was not done by the Respondent. Hence, the petitioner
has filed the petitioner M.P.No.2 & 3 of 2021 in R.C.A.No.698 of 2017 to
permit the petitioner to adduce evidence (ie) for appointment of the
Advocate Commissioner to entrust the Original Agreement dated
13.08.2004, Original Rental Agreement dated 01.04.2005 and the Original
Agreement dated 01.12.2006 with the handwriting expert, finger print
expert, finger print expert ( Forensics science Department), Mylapore,
Chennai 600 004 to compare th petitioner's admitted left thumb impression
in Original Rental Agreement dated 13.08.2004, Original Rental
Agreement dated 01.042004 with the forged/disputed petitioner's left
thumb impression in alleged Rental Agreement dated 01.12.2006 and get
the opinion from the expert by sealed cover and file the same before the
learned IX Small Causes Court at Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. He would further submit that, the learned IX Small Causes Court
has failed to consider that the Respondent has received the contractual rent
from the petitioner from 2006 to till filing the above RCOP Petition, if the
alleged Rental Agreement dated 01.12.2006 which is highly created doubt
about for execution of alleged rental agreement dated 01.12.2006 by the
petitioner and there is no stretch of the imagination that the Respondent
did not demand the alleged enhancement of 10% rent from the petitioner
till filing the above RCOP.
5. He would further submit that the learned IX Small Causes Court
at Chennai has failed to consider that the petitioner has not at all
committed the alleged willful default in payment of Rent and the
Respondent has admitted during the course of cross examination of
Respondent that the Petitioner has regularly paying the contractual
monthly rent to the Respondent through money order for the petition
premises and as such the petitioner has not committed the alleged willful
default in payment of rent as alleged by the respondent. However,
purposely, he has filed the Rent Control Original Petition as if he
committed willful default in payment of rent. But, without considering his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
contentions, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition and against
which, he preferred appeal, which was also dismissed by the learned Rent
Control Appellate Authority. Challenging the said findings, he preferred
this Civil Revision Petition.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that,
petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as rent and the same was
approved by the Rent Controller. But the petitioner willfully neglected to
pay the enhanced rent and committed default in payment of arrears of rent.
7. Records perused. On perusal of the order passed by the learned
Rent Control Appellate Authority it reveals that, the landlord/respondent
initiated eviction proceedings by issuing notice. Originally, lease was given
for sweet stall, contrary to the terms of lease, tenant fixed cylinders for
preparing chappatis converting to hotel business and the same was
accepted by him during trial. When the same was questioned by the
landlord, the tenant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as rent. However,
there was a default in the payment of rent. Therefore, the Rent Control
Appellate Authority has rightly dismissed the R.C.A.No.680 of 2017 and it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
does not need any interference. I do not find any merit in this Civil
Revision Petition. However, period of five months time is granted to the
Revision Petitioner to vacate the premises from the date of receipt of copy
of this order. Failing which, the landlord shall execute the execution
proceedings through Court of law. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition
is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
22.12.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
sma
To
IX Small Causes Court at Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
sma
22.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
