Madras High Court
Sabitha Mohan vs P.V.Nithiyanandam on 12 September, 2023
CRP.NPD.No.3481 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.NPD.No.3481 of 2019
Sabitha Mohan ... Petitioner
Vs
A.Velayutham Mudaliar (deceased)
1.P.V.Nithiyanandam
2.V.Sundari
3.D.Santhi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 25 of Tamilnadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, against the judgment and decree
dated 22.08.2019 in R.C.A.No.74 of 2017 passed by the learned IX Judge,
Small Causes Court, Chennai by reversing the judgment and decree made in
R.C.O.P.No.861 of 2015 passed by the learned XV Judge, Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.J.Rajmohan for R2 & R3
Mr.R.Amardeep for
M/s.Tamizh Law Firm for R1
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.NPD.No.3481 of 2019
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order and decreetal order
of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/IX Judge, Court of Small Causes,
Chennai passed in RCA No.74 of 2017 dated 22.08.2019, in confirming the
order and decreetal order passed by the learned Rent Controller/XV Judge,
Court of Small Causes, Chennai in RCOP No.861 of 2015 dated 28.11.2016.
2. The Civil Revision Petitioner is the tenant and the respondents are the
landlords. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as landlords
and tenant.
3. There is no dispute in the relationship of landlord and tenant.
According to the landlord, he had let out the property to the tenant on the
monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- per month. It is the case of the tenant that she has
taken the possession of the property in July 1996, but according to her the rent
paid was only Rs.2,500/- per month. She would further plead that initially the
rent was paid Rs.700/- per month and step by step, the rent was increased and
according to her, on the date on which the RCOP was filed, the rent was only
Rs.2,500/- per month and not Rs.3,000/- per month.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.NPD.No.3481 of 2019
4. The period of default according to the landlord is from September
2014 to April 2015 in all it comes to 8 months.
5. The learned Rent Controller took note of the fact that Ex.P15 is a
series of receipts, which was issued by the landlord for the amount received by
him. It is the admitted case that the landlord was used to give two receipts for
every month for Rs.1,500/- towards rent and Rs.1,500/- towards maintenance.
The counterfoil contains the signature of the tenant. During the course of cross
examination, the tenant denied the signature. Ex.P15/series of receipt was for
the period from 14.04.2013 to 08.01.2014 and from 12.01.2014 to 10.10.2014.
As against Ex.P15, no contrary evidence was placed by the tenant.
6. Finding that there was willful default, the Rent Controller ordered
eviction. This was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Court. Against
these concurrent findings, the present revision arises.
7. Mr.R.Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant
submitted that the relationship between the parties was cordial and therefore, he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.NPD.No.3481 of 2019
did not take any steps to approach the Court under Section 8(5) of Tamilnadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. This goes against the facts of the case
because the landlord had issued a letter on 01.04.2015 stating that he has
adjusted the arrears of rent as against the period from September 2014 to
December 2014. This shows the relationship was not cordial, as pleaded.
Further, Rs.15,000/- get adjusted in four months and there is still a balance of
four months of default period, when the notice was issued.
8. It is pertinent to point out here that despite the receipt of the notice
dated 01.04.2015, the tenant did not take any steps at all. The factum of receipt
of the letter had been admitted by the tenant as R.W.1. There being no other
evidence to come to the conclusion that the rent was only Rs.2,500/- and the
learned Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs.3,000/-.
9. Insofar as the additional advance is said to have been paid by the
tenant of Rs.15,000/-, no proof had been let in by the tenant. All the documents
that had been filed on behalf of the respondent where for the period subsequent
to April 2015 and not for the period between September 2014 to April 2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.NPD.No.3481 of 2019
10. The cause of auction for the rent control petition arose in September
2014, when the first default was made and concluded with 01.04.2015, when
the landlord sent a letter under Ex.P1. There being no proof, the learned Rent
Controller ordered eviction. The Tenant carried this order on appeal as stated
above. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority concurred with the view
of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal.
11. The learned counsel reiterated the submissions that was made before
the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority and wanted
me to come a conclusion that there is no default committed by the tenant.
12. I pointed out to him the following facts:
(a) there is no proof that has been let in by his clients to show any
amounts had been paid for the period between September 2014 and April 2015;
(b) no steps have been taken by the tenant, when the landlord did
not give a receipt under Section 8(5) of Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act.
© there is no proof that has been let in by the tenant to show
additional advance of Rs.15,000/- had been paid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.NPD.No.3481 of 2019
13. On the contrary, R.W.1 had deposed that there is no proof of the said
payment before the trial Court.
14. To these points, the learned counsel for the tenant was unable to give
me any satisfactory reply. The Courts below have appreciated the evidence and
come to a conclusion that there is a default and the default is willful. Sitting
under Section 25 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
1960, I am not in a position to re-appreciate the evidence. The Courts below
having found that the evidence of the tenant is untrustworthy and unreliable. I
am not in a position to take a different view and consequently, I find no reason
to interfere with the concurrent finding.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the tenant is
granted six months for eviction. The time is granted till 31.03.2024 on the
following conditions:-
(i) That the tenant shall file an affidavit of undertaking
that she will not induct any fresh person into the property;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.NPD.No.3481 of 2019
(ii) That the tenants will hand over peaceful possession of
the property on or before 31.03.2024;
(iii) All the arrears will be paid and the tenant shall
continue to pay rent as long as she is in occupation of the
premises without default;
(iv) Time is granted till 29.09.2023 to file affidavit of
undertaking.
(v) In case, the tenants do not file affidavit of undertaking
on or before 29.09.2023, the landlord is free to proceed
with eviction.
16. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
12.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
vkr
Note: Issue order copy on 12.09.2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.NPD.No.3481 of 2019
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
vkr
To
1. IX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai
2. XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai
CRP.NPD.No.3481 of 2019
12.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
