Madras High Court
R.Kalaivani vs S.Krushnan on 3 January, 2023
2023/MHC/109
C.R.P.(PD) No.4097 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:03.01.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
C.R.P. (PD) No.4097 of 2022
and C.M.P. No.21273 of 2022
R.Kalaivani .. Petitioner
vs
S.Krushnan .. Respondent
Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India
against the order dated 20.10.2022 passed in M.P.No.2 of 2022 in
RLTOP No.139 of 2021 by the learned Judge, XIV Small Causes
Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijayan
for Mr.K.Kulandaivelu
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vijayakumar
ORDER
1. The Civil Revision Petition has been instituted under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated
20.10.2022 passed in M.P.No.2 of 2022 in RLTOP No.139 of 2021.
The revision petitioner is the land lord, who instituted the petition
in RLTOP No.139 of 2021 to evict the respondent / tenant from the
said premises on the ground that the revision petitioner has not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) No.4097 of 2022
entered into an agreement with the respondent / tenant. The
petition was filed under Section 21(2)(a) of the TN Act 42 of 2017.
2. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that during
the pendency of rent control proceedings, the respondent / tenant
has not paid the admitted monthly rent of Rs.70,000/-.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
the petitioner is a divorced woman and depending on the rental
income for leading her livelihood. Since the respondent / tenant
has not paid the rent for the past about fourteen months from the
month of December 2021 to till date, she has not been able to lead
her livelihood and, therefore, filed the miscellaneous petition in
M.P.No.2 of 2022 for a direction to pay the monthly rent punctually
to the revision petitioner. The Rent Court adjudicated the issues
and made the finding that the miscellaneous petition for claiming
arrears of rent under Section 25 of the RLTOP Act is not
maintainable since the eviction petition was filed under Section
21(2)(a) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner
reiterated that the land lord is entitled for monthly rent which is
admitted by the respondent / tenant. Thus, the trial Court
committed an error in rejecting the application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) No.4097 of 2022
4. The learned counsel for the respondent / Tenant
objected the said contentions by stating that Section 25 of the new
Act prohibits entertaining any miscellaneous application if the
eviction petition is filed under Section 21(2)(a)and 21(2)(b) of the
Act. The learned counsel for the respondent / tenant further states
that the RLTOP itself is not maintainable and in this regard he had
referred to certain judgments of this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner states
that the Miscellaneous Petition filed for recovery of rent is
maintainable even during the pendency of the application for
eviction filed under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act.
6. Section 25 of the New Act denotes payment of rent
during eviction proceedings as under:
“In any proceedings for recovery of
possession on any ground other than that
referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-
section (2) of Section 21, the tenant contests
the claim for eviction, the landlord may, at
any stage of proceedings, apply to the Rent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) No.4097 of 2022
Court to direct the tenant to pay to the
landlord rent payable as under Section 8and
the Rent Court may order the tenant to make
such payment as agreed regularly to the
landlord by the tenth of the month and all
other charges due from the tenant along with
penal charges, if any, due to delay in the
same manner as provided in sub-section (1)
of Section 13.”
7. The above provision is unambiguous that if any
application for eviction is filed on the ground under Section
21(2)(a) or 21(2)(b) of the Act, then the Miscellaneous Application
for payment of rent during the eviction proceedings are not
entertainable. Thus, the Rent Court is right in dismissing the
Miscellaneous Petition filed by the revision petitioner for payment
of rent by the respondent / tenant. However, this Court is of an
opinion that in such circumstances, the application filed by the
landlord for eviction under Section 21(2)(a) or 21(2)(b) of the Act
is to be disposed of within the time limit as contemplated under
Section 36(6) of the New Act.
8. On the one hand, the Rent Court cannot keep the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) No.4097 of 2022
proceedings beyond the time limit prescribed under the new Act
and on the other hand deprive the landlord from recovering the
monthly rent as per the agreement between the parties. In the
present case, the petitioner / landlord claims that rent being her
livelihood and she being a divorced women is unable to lead her
life. Thus, the Courts are empowered to protect the livelihood in
the interest of justice.
9. Therefore, whenever, the ground for eviction is made
under Section 21(2)(a) or 21(2)(b) of the Act and the landlord
pleads that the rent is livelihood and the tenant refuses to pay
rent, since eviction proceedings are instituted, then the rent Court
and Rent Tribunal shall ensure that the main application is
disposed of by adhering the time limit prescribed under Section
36(6) of the New Act, so as to avoid any undue hardship to the
landlord.
10. In the present case, the learned counsel for the
respondent states that there is a dispute regarding the ownership.
The husband of the revision petitioner also claims ownership and
therefore, the respondent / tenant is unable to pay the rent to the
revision petitioner. In this context, it is relevant to look into the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) No.4097 of 2022
renewal lease agreement entered into between the revision
petitioner R.Kalaivani and the respondent Mr.S.Krushnan. The
tenant is liable to pay the rent to the person with whom he entered
into an agreement for tenancyship as per the terms and conditions.
Any title dispute unconnected with the tenant cannot be a ground
for the tenant to deny rent to the landlord with whom he entered
into an agreement. In other words, no tenant can be permitted to
take undue advantage of the title dispute between the family
members or between the other parties. Contract between the
parties are binding on them. Thus, the tenancy agreement between
the parties are binding on the parties and therefore, the tenant
cannot say that there is title dispute and therefore he is unable to
know to whom the rent is to be paid.
11. In the present case, admittedly the respondent entered
into an agreement with the revision petitioner. While so, he cannot
take a stand that there is a dispute between the petitioner and her
husband and therefore, he is not in a position to pay the rent to the
petitioner. Such a ground is not available to the tenant. The tenant
is bound by the agreement and no way connected with the title
disputes or rent to be paid to the landlord with whom he entered
into an agreement for tenancy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) No.4097 of 2022
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that
monthly rent of Rs.70,000/- was agreed and admitted and
therefore, the respondent is bound to pay the monthly rent as per
the agreement till such time the premises are vacated. The
R.L.T.O.P filed for eviction is pending for about one year beyond
the time limit contemplated under the provisions of the New Act.
13. That being the case, the landlord need not be deprived
of her right of monthly rent during the pendency and the bar
contemplated under Section 25 of the New Act affecting the
livelihood would result in miscarriage of justice in the present case.
In such circumstances, the High Court is within its powers to
invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of
providing complete justice to the parties.
14. To remove the difficulties in view of certain specific
provisions of law, if any party is deprived of his/her livelihood or
the provision of the Act operates against the basic rights, then the
High Court is empowered to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution
of India and grant the relief accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) No.4097 of 2022
15. Undoubtedly, an application for payment of rent during
the eviction proceedings under Section 25 of the New Act is not
maintainable, if the grounds for eviction is under Section 21(2)(a)
or 21(2)(b).
16. Claiming monthly rent by the landlord is just and lawful
claim. Payment of rent is the duty of the tenant as per the
agreement. Denial of monthly rent to the landlord provides a
cause. No doubt, there is a prohibition for entertaining a
Miscellaneous Petition under Section 25 of the Act in the present
case. But the petitioner claims that she is the divorced women and
leading her life only with the support of the monthly rent being
collected from the tenant. Thus, the High Court has to protect the
livelihood and the right of the landlord to recover rent from the
tenant till such time the respondent vacate the premises and
handover the possession.
17. Thus, in the present case, the Rent Court has rightly
rejected the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the revision petitioner /
landlord for payment of rent. However, the Rent Court failed to
dispose of the application for eviction filed under Section 21(2)(a)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) No.4097 of 2022
or 21(2)(b) of the Act. When the R.L.T.O.P has not been disposed
of within the time limit as contemplated under the New Act, then it
will give a raise to the landlord to claim payment of rent as agreed
between the parties, before this Court.
18. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is
inclined to invoke the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India in order to mitigate the hardship being caused to the
revision petitioner / landlord and accordingly, passed the following
orders:
(a) The respondent / tenant is directed to pay the
agreed monthly rent of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees
Seventy Thousand Only) to the revision
petitioner / landlord on or before the 10th day of
every English Calendar month, till such time he
vacate the premises and hand over vacant
possession to the revision petitioner / landlord.
(b) The arrears of rent to be paid for the past about
14 months to the revision petitioner / landlord is
to be settled by deducting the advance amount
of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only)
within a period of four (4) weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this order.
(c) The Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) No.4097 of 2022
directed to ensure in case of bar for payment of
rent under Section 25 in respect of the
applications filed for eviction under Section
21(2)(a) or 21(2)(b) of the New Act, then such
applications are disposed of within the time limit
prescribed under Section 36(6) of the Act to
avoid unnecessary hardship to the parties.
19. With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition
stands disposed of. No costs. Connected, miscellaneous petition is
closed.
03.01.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
ssm/jeni
To
The XIV Judge,
Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) No.4097 of 2022
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM,J.
ssm
C.R.P. (PD) No.4097 of 2022
03.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
