Madras High Court
Rajalakshmi vs Sri Vasavi Kanniga Parameswari ... on 6 November, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date : 06.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.[NPD].No.3015 of 2024
&
CMP.No.16214 of 2024
Nadarajan [died]
1. Rajalakshmi
2. Rajesh
3. Rajeswari . . . Petitioners
Versus
Sri Vasavi Kanniga Parameswari Devasthanam,
Rep. by its President, Mr.Rajendran
Kamatchiamman Koil Street, Pondicherry. . . . Respondent
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the
decree and judgment dated 18.04.2024 in R.C.A.No.12 of 2019 against
H.R.C.O.P.No.54 of 2024 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry
confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2018 in H.R.C.O.P.No.54 of 2004 on
the file of the Rent Controller I, at Puducherry.
For petitioners : Mr.T.Mathi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
For respondent : Mr.Anirudh Krishnan
ORDER
Challenge has been made against the decree and judgment of the appellate
authority dated 18.04.2024 in R.C.A.No.12 of 2019 against H.R.C.O.P.No.54 of 2024
on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry confirming Order of
eviction by the Rent Controller dated 17.04.2018 in H.R.C.O.P.No.54 of 2004 on the
file of the Rent Controller I, at Puducherry.
2. The petitioner was a tenant under the respondent as per the agreement dated
01.01.1999. The rent agreed to be paid was Rs.750/- per month and the same shall be
paid on before fifth of every month. Thereafter, the rent has been enhanced to
Rs.1250/-. As the petitioner has not paid the rent from June 2002 till March 2004,
eviction is sought before the Rent Controller on the ground of willful default.
3. It is the stand of the petitioners that they had paid an advance of Rs.25,000/-.
The petitioners have also disputed enhancement of rent to Rs.1250/-. It is their
contention that since the advance amount is already with the respondent, there cannot
be any willful default. The Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority have come
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to the conclusion that the rent of Rs.1250/- per month has not been paid regularly from
the year 2004 and hence, Ordered eviction of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the
present revision petition has been filed.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the second
petitioner is a widow and at any event, the respondent is leasing out the property to the
third party and the petitioners are also willing to pay the rent and they may be continued
to be a tenant. It is the contention of the petitioners that during the pendency of the
present Civil Revision, rents have paid as per the direction of this Court. Therefore,
non payment of rent for certain period will not amount to willful default.
5. I have perused entire materials. Admittedly, as per the direction of this Court,
the petitioners have paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- within a day. The same clearly indicate
that the petitioner has capacity to mobilize funds. The fact remains that the petitioner
has not paid monthly rent of Rs.1250/- regularly from the year 2004. When the tenant
has not paid rents regularly for several months, it cannot be said that such default will
not amount to willful default. When the rent has been withheld or not paid for may
years, merely some rent has been paid as per the direction of the Court, it cannot be said
that there is no willful default on the part of the petitioner. Hence, I do not find any
merits in the Order of the appellate authority confirming Order of eviction by the Rent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Controller.
6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The petitioner is directed to vacate the
premises within two month from today.
06.11.2024
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
vrc
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
This Civil Revision Petition is listed today at
the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner under the caption 'for being mentioned'.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that there is a typographical error crept in
the Order of this Court in Civil Revision Petition in
CRP.[NPD]No.3015 of 2014, dated 06.11.2024.
3. In view of the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the last sentence in the
paragraph No.5 of the Order in Civil Revision
Petition in CRP.[NPD]No.3015 of 2014, dated
06.11.2024, shall be read as follows :
“Hence, I do not find any merits to
interfere with the Order of the appellate
authority confirming the Order of eviction
by the Rent Controller.”
4. The registry is directed to incorporate the
above sentence and issue fresh Order to the parties
concerned.
07.11.2024
vrc
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
06.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
