Madras High Court
K.Pandiammal vs P.Muthukumar on 20 September, 2023
C.R.P.No.2686 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.2686 of 2014
and
C.M.P.Nos. 21026 of 2017 & 5020 of 2022
K.Pandiammal .. Petitioner
Vs.
P.Muthukumar .. Respondent
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25(1) of the
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act 18 of 1960, to set
aside the Judgment and decree, dated 28.04.2014 passed by Learned
Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Subordinate Court, Tiruppur in
R.C.A.No.9 of 2006, reversing the judgment, dated 28.02.2006 passed by
Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Tiruppur in RCOP.No.3 of 2004.
For Petitioner : Ms.Pavithra Shini
for M/S.V.Manohar
For Respondent : Mr.K.Kishore Kumar
for Mr.N.S.Sivakumar
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2686 of 2014
ORDER
The tenant is the Civil Revision Petitioner. R.C.O.P.No.03 of 2004
was presented by the respondent/landlord. He had urged on two grounds
for the purpose of eviction. The first ground being wilful default and the
second ground being own occupation.
2. The relationship between the landlord and tenant is admitted.
The monthly rent payable is also admitted. Apart from that, it is the
accepted case of the landlord that he had received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees three lakhs only) as advance amount. As per the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, the landlord is entitled to receive
only one month rent as advance and the remaining amount in his hands
should be adjusted as against the dues payable by the tenant.
3. In this case, the allegation is from December 2002 to October
2003, the rents have not been paid. It is on record that though the tenant
has stated in the counter statement, a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three
thousand only) as rent, no evidences have been produced within the time
before the Trial Court to substantiate the same. Furthermore, the tenant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2686 of 2014
has nowhere stated that he called upon the landlord to adjust the advance
as against the dues payable.
4. Pending the R.C.O.P., the rents were not paid and the situation
prevailed during the appeal also. Even before this Court from 2014 till
date amounts have not been paid towards the rentals. This has
constrained the landlord to file C.M.P.No.5020 of 2022 seeking for a
direction to the tenant to pay a sum of Rs.11,55,000/- (Rupees eleven
lakhs and fifty five thousand only) being the rental arrears from
December 2002 to February 2022.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that her client is
not in a position to pay the amount and that the tenant is willing to
handover the possession of the property. As on today, the arrears comes
to Rs.11,90,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs and ninety thousand only).
6. The factum that the tenant has not paid the rents despite
launching of litigation against him shows that the tenant has reflected not
only indifference but supine indifference in paying the rent. The Court
can only come to a conclusion that there is a default and not merely a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2686 of 2014
wilful default. In the light of the fact that the tenant himself has not
asked for adjustment of the advance as against arrears payable shows he
was not interested in honouring his contractual obligation of paying the
rents.
7. Apart from this ground, there is yet another ground under
Section 103(c) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It
is not in dispute that the landlord is running a textile business in the name
and style of 'Madhu Matching & Sarees'. The counter also proceeds in
admitting that the tenant is doing wholesale and retail business. He is
occupying the adjacent shop to that of the tenant. The landlord wants to
expand his existing business and therefore he has presented the petition
under Section 103(c).
8. The only averment of the tenant is that the landlord has occupied
the premises only for the purpose of inventing a ground of eviction. Apart
from that, there is no serious objections in the counter statement as
regards the requirement of the additional accommodation of the landlord.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2686 of 2014
9. A tenant cannot dictate the landlord as to how he should utilise
his premises. The landlord has proved that he is running his own business
and he is also occupying the adjacent property. It would be convenient to
the landlord to expand his business. In the light of the above, the
premises being adjacent to each other, this proves the bonafide of the
landlord. The only aspect I have considered is whether, if an order of
eviction is passed it would cause more damage to the tenant than to the
landlord.
10. The expansion of business is always a desire of the
businessmen and if the landlord is going to expand his business, it is not
going to affect the tenant. On the contrary, it will benefit the landlord.
Further, Tiruppur is a well-known area for textile business and if the
tenant is vacated, he can always find an alternate accommodation in the
very same area. In the light of the above, the comparative hardship will
be more to the landlord if the tenant's eviction is not ordered. The tenant
can always find an alternate accommodation in the very same area for the
purpose of carrying on his business.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2686 of 2014
11. The lower Appellate Court has appreciated the position
correctly and has ordered eviction. Therefore, sitting under Section 25 of
the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, I am not in a
position to re-appreciate the evidence that has been correctly appreciated
by the lower Appellate Court.
12. In fine, the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Control
Appellate Authority-cum-Subordinate Judge in R.C.A.No.9 of 2006,
dated 28.02.2014 in reversing the order and decreetal order of the Rent
Controller cum District Munsif Court, Tiruppur in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2004,
dated 28.02.2006 is confirmed.
13. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. At this stage,
Ms.Pavithra Shini representing Mr.V.Manohar states that the tenant will
vacate and handover the possession by 30.09.2023. The said submission
is recorded.
14. It is open to the landlord to initiate proceedings for recovery of
the amount, less the advance in his hands, as against the tenant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2686 of 2014
15. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Accordingly, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
20.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order :Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
MKN2/VEDA
To
1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-Subordinate Court,
Tiruppur.
2.The Rent Controller/District Munsif Court,
Tiruppur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2686 of 2014
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
MKN2/VEDA
C.R.P.No.2686 of 2014
and
C.M.P.Nos. 21026 of 2017 & 5020 of 2022
20.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
