Madras High Court
K.Mohanraj vs R.Adikesavan on 22 September, 2023
C.R.P.No.1671 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.1671 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.12937 of 2021
K.Mohanraj .. Petitioner
vs
R.Adikesavan .. Respondent
Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the judgment and
decree dated 22.02.2021 made in RCA No.322 of 2017 passed by
the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, confirming
the order and decree dated 16.02.2017 made in R.C.O.P. No.1736
of 2014 passed by the learned XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Lakshmipathi
for Mr.S.Ganesh
For Respondent : Mr.V.Shivakumar
for Mr.P.B.Ramanujam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
C.R.P.No.1671 of 2021
ORDER
The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondent is the
landlord. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred
to as landlord and tenant.
2. The tenant entered into possession of the schedule
mentioned property under a lease agreement with Late
Ranganathan, the father of the present landlord. There is no
dispute in the jural relationship or the monthly rent payable. The
monthly rent on the date on which RCOP was filed was Rs.2,800/-.
The period of default was from July, 2013 to September, 2014.
Since it went beyond the period contemplated under Section
10(2)(1) of CPC, the petition was filed only on the ground of wilful
default.
3. It is the case of the tenant that he had been paying
rents from 1998 till October, 2013 without any default. According
to him, for the reasons best known to the landlord, who was not in
the habit of issuing receipts, he refused to receive the rents for the
period upto October, 2013. Therefore, he caused a notice on
21.12.2013 and presented a petition under Section 8(5) of the
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1671 of 2021
petition was taken on file as RCOP No.341 of 2014. The landlord's
wife examined herself as a witness and produced five documents.
The respondent examined himself as witness and marked two
documents. The learned Rent Controller came to a conclusion that
there is no explanation for the period from July, 2013 till the date
of filing of RCOP and came to a conclusion that there is wilful
default and ordered eviction. This order was appealed against
before the learned VIII Court of Small Causes in RCA No.322 of
2017. The said RCA No.322 of 2017 was dismissed on 22.02.2021,
against which, the present civil revision petition is filed.
4. Heard learned counsel on either side and I have
carefully gone through the records.
5. As I have already premised, there is no dispute with
the relationship between the parties. The period of default has
arisen from July, 2013 till September, 2014. Though, the tenant
had pleaded that till October, 2013, he had paid the rents, he has
not tendered any evidence before the Court. The factum that the
relationship between the parties is strained even before the
presentation of the RCOP is clear from Exs.P2 to P5, which are the
suit filed in O.S.No.6098 of 2013 and the Section 8(5) petition filed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1671 of 2021
under RCOP No. 341 of 2014.
6. When the relationship between the parties are strained,
the tenant should have been cautious to have a record for payment
of rents. The tenant has not produced any records to substantiate
the same. The receipt that has been produced by the tenant under
Ex.R1 also relates to the deposit that was made by him pursuant to
the order passed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act. The fact that the landlord was
pushed to file an application under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for the purpose of clearing
of the arrears makes me to infer that there was a default. The
payment having been made after being coerced by an order of the
Court constrains me to the conclude the said default is wilful.
7. Now, if I turn to the petition filed in RCOP No.341 of
2014, the said petition came to be dismissed following the
judgment of the Supreme Court reported in E.Palanisamy v
Palanisamy (2003) 1 SCC 123. Both the learned counsel agree that
no appeal has been preferred against the said judgment and
decreetal order dismissing the petition under Section 8(5) of the
Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1671 of 2021
8. The attempt of the tenant to prove that the default is
only from October, 2013 onwards having failed by the dismissal of
Section 8(5) petition and having attained finality as the same was
not appealed against, I am not in a position to accept the
argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the default
period commenced only in October, 2013.
9. In fine, the default being wilful, I am constrained to
confirm the order and decreetal order in RCA No.322 of 2017 dated
22.02.2021 in confirming the order and decreetal order in RCOP
No.1736 of 2014 dated 16.02.2017.
10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
sufficient time to vacate and handover the possession. Learned
counsel for the respondent submits that the landlord will not
accede to more than three months.
11. In the interest of justice and considering the fact that
the petitioner has been in occupation of the premises from 1998,
nine months time is granted for vacating and handing over the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1671 of 2021
possession. In order to get the benefit of time, the petitioner will
have to file an affidavit of undertaking that he will pay the rents
without any default. Both sides agree that there is no default
pending this revision and that the rents are being paid on time.
The learned counsel for the landlord undertakes to refund the
advance of Rs.50,000/- received by Mr.Ranganathan from
Mr.Mohanraj at the time Mr.Mohanraj hands over the possession.
The said affidavit shall be filed before this Court on or before
27.09.2023.
12. With the above directions, the civil revision petition
stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
13. List on 29.09.2023 for 'reporting compliance'.
22.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ssm
To
1. The VIII Judge,
Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1671 of 2021
2. The XVI Judge,
Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.1671 of 2021
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
ssm
C.R.P.No.1671 of 2021
22.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
