Madras High Court
V.Alamelu Achi vs Amutha on 22 September, 2023
C.R.P.(MD)No.731 of 2006
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.731 of 2006
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007
V.Alamelu Achi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.Amutha
2.R.Manian (died)
3.Subbulakshmi
4.Muthukumar
5.Shanthi Subramanian ... Respondents
[Respondents 3 to 5 are brought on records as legal heirs of the
deceased second respondent vide Court order dated 09.12.2022]
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu
Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960 to set aside the judgment and
decree dated 27.02.2006 passed by the Sub Court, Devakottai in R.C.A.No.
9 of 2005.
For Petitioner : Ms.AL.Gandhimathi
Senior Counsel
for Mr.C.Mahadevan
For Respondents : No Appearance
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.731 of 2006
ORDER
The present revision petition has been filed by the landlord
challenging the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority
reversing the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on the ground
of willful default.
2.The revision petitioner herein had filed R.C.O.P.No.19 of 2002
before the District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Karaikudi for evicting the
respondents herein on the ground of willful default, owner's occupation and
subletting. According to the landlord, the first respondent in RCOP is the
original tenant. He had sublet the premises to the second respondent
therein. The tenant had committed willful default from November 2001 to
July 2002. The landlord has further contended that she requires the
premises for her own occupation. The tribunal after considering the
submissions of either side arrived at a finding that the landlord has not
established the plea of own occupation and subletting. However, the Rent
Controller was pleased to order eviction on the ground of willful default.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.731 of 2006
3.The original tenant, namely the first respondent has not chosen to
file any appeal. The second respondent/sub tenant had filed R.C.A.No.9 of
2005 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thoothukudi. The
appellate authority relied upon the proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.17 of 2002
and proceeded to hold that the second respondent /appellant had been
depositing the rent in R.C.O.P.No.17 of 2002 and therefore, the landlord has
not established the plea of willful default. Challenging the said order, the
present revision petition has been filed by the landlord.
4.Pending revision petition, the original tenant had passed away and
his legal heirs have been impleaded. Though the legal heirs have been
served, they have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel.
5.The learned senior counsel appearing for the landlord brought to the
notice of the Court that the appellant in R.C.A.No.9 of 2005 had filed
R.C.O.P.No.17 of 2002 before the Rent Controller, Karaikudi under Section
8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act praying for
depositing the rent before the Court on the ground that the landlord is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.731 of 2006
refusing to receive the rent. The said petition was dismissed for default on
21.08.2003.
6.According to the learned senior counsel, the second respondent in
R.C.O.P., had not deposited the rent either to the credit of R.C.O.P.No.17 of
2002 or directly to the landlord. Even during the pendency of the rent
control proceedings, the sub tenant namely, Amutha had not chosen to pay
the rent to the landlord. The learned senior counsel further contended that
merely due to the pendency of rent control proceedings, the First Appellate
Authority ought not to have reversed the findings of the Rent Controller.
Even before the appeal was filed by the sub tenant, her petition for
depositing the rent has been dismissed. Due to inadvertence, this was not
brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority.
7.In view of the above said facts, it is clear that the second respondent
in R.C.O.P.No.19 of 2002, namely Amutha had not paid the rent amount
from November 2001 onwards either before initiation of the rent control
proceedings or during the pendency of the rent control proceedings.
Therefore, this Court is of the view that the second respondent in the rent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.731 of 2006
control proceedings and the first respondent in this revision, namely Amutha
has committed willful default in payment of rent and therefore, the order of
the appellate Authority is set aside and the order of eviction passed by the
Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.19 of 2002 dated 06.04.2005 is hereby
restored.
8.This Civil Revision Petition is allowed on the above terms. No
costs.
22.09.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
ta
To
1.Sub Court, Devakottai.
2.The District Munsif cum Rent Controller,
Karaikudi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.731 of 2006
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ta
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.731 of 2006
22.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
