Madras High Court
Times Educations & Charitable Trust vs P.A.M.Jahira on 24 February, 2025
C.R.P.(MD)No.2027 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.2027 of 2023
and C.M.P.(MD).No.10115 of 2023
Times Educations & Charitable Trust
represented through its Managing Trustee
Mr.T.Kamaraj,
S/o. Late Shri.Thangaraj,
D.No.4/947, Thaikka Colony,
Rahamath Nagar, Tiruchendur Road,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District. ... Petitioner/Appellant/Respondent/Tenant
Vs.
P.A.M.Jahira ... Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner/Landlord
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to set aside
the fair and decreetal order passed in R.C.A.No.10 of 2017 order dated
01.06.2023, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority
(Principal Sub Court), Tirunelveli confirming the fair and decreetal order
passed in R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2014 order, dated 02.05.2017 on the file of
the I Additional District Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif
Court), Tirunelveli.
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
C.R.P.(MD)No.2027 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam
For Respondents : Mr.N.A.Nissal Ahamed,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.I.Abdul Basith
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed to set aside the fair and
decreetal order passed in R.C.A.No.10 of 2017 order dated 01.06.2023,
on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Court),
Tirunelveli confirming the fair and decreetal order passed in R.C.O.P.No.
2 of 2014 order, dated 02.05.2017 on the file of the I Additional District
Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif Court), Tirunelveli.
2.The facts in brief:
R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2014 was filed by the respondent herein under the
provisions of 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b), 10(2)(iii) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, against the
petitioner herein for eviction on the ground that the revision petitioner
defaulted in payment of rent in willful manner, caused damages to the
demised building and for own use and occupation and different users,
than the purpose for which it was leased out. The Rent Controller
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
decided the first issue wilful default in favour of the landlord. In respect
of the different user, causing damages and for own use and occupation,
the grounds were rejected. So delivery was ordered on the ground of
wilful default, by the order dated 02.05.2017. Against which, the revision
petitioner preferred R.C.A.10 of 2017 before the appellate Authority
namely Sub Judge, Tirunelveli. The appellate authority concurred with
the finding regarding the wilful default and dismissed the appeal by the
order, dated 01.06.2023. Against which this revision petition is preferred.
3.Heard both sides.
4.Among the grounds raised by the respondent herein the eviction
was ordered only in respect of wilful default. We need not consider the
other grounds raised by the respondent. An attempt was made by the
respondent before the appellate authority to raise up those pleas once
again. But, it was rightly rejected by the appellate authority. So that
portion of the order or finding as the case may be recorded by the Rent
Controller attained finality.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
5.Revision is concentrated only upon the issue of wilful default.
Before we go into the main issue, the admitted fact can be kept in mind.
The rent was monthly rent based upon English Calendar month entered
between the parties. On 12.12.2009, an advance amount of Rs.60,000/-
was paid by the revision petitioner. Now it lies in the custody of the
respondent. The original rent was fixed at Rs.10,000/-. Originally the
period was fixed for 11 months. After 11 months period is over in the
event of renewal, the tenant must pay 6% enhanced rent. This is the
admitted fact on both sides.
6.Now coming to the issue. According to the respondent herein,
after the expiry of 11 months period, it was orally extended for another
11 months. As per the terms of the lease agreement, the revision
petitioner must pay enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.10,600/-. But, the
revision petitioner requested the respondent to reconsider the
enhancement stating the financial position of the trust. So the original
rent of Rs.10,000/- was continued for two times. But, later, from
December 2012, the revision petitioner must pay enhanced rent at the
rate of Rs.11,800/-. That amount was not paid by the revision petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
wilfully. A notice was issued on 13.02.2013, for which revision
petitioner sent reply notice on 19.02.2013.
7.Later, the revision petitioner filed R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2014 stating
that the agent of the respondent is not coming for collecting the rent. So
permission must be granted to him to deposit the monthly rent.
8.So in respect of this averment in the petition, now we will go to
the counter affidavit filed by the revision petitioner before the Rent
Controller, wherein, it has been stated that the trust is not a tenant under
the respondent. But, Kamaraj in the individual capacity, who is also
trustee of the trust is the tenant. Now, this point is not raised before me at
this stage. So we need not be enter on that point.
9.Coming to the issue of default, it has been stated in the counter
that till December 2012 Rent was paid regularly. Thereafter, the agent
did not come for the collection and so notice was issued to the
respondent herein expressing his readiness and willingness. But, even
after that the landlord did not come forward. So notice was given for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
informing about the Bank account number, etc., for deposit. Thereafter,
R.C.O.P.No.26 of 2013 was filed.
10.So reading of the counter affidavit indicates that it did not
address an important aspect of payment of enhanced rent. Now, we will
go to the petition filed by the revision petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.26 of
2013, wherein, the very same averments is repeated. But, without
mentioning the point of demand of enhanced rent, they sought the
permission of the Court to deposit the rent arrear from December 2012 to
April 2017. It was allowed by the order dated 02.05.2017 directing the
revision petitioner to deposit the arrear amount and continue to deposit
monthly rent within 5th of every succeeding month. There is a finding to
the effect that it was not proved by the respondent that rent was enhanced
to Rs.11,800/- through documentary evidence.
11.Now, it is seen that the revision petitioner did not intend to pay
the enhanced rent. But, only originally agreed rent of Rs.10,000/-.
12.Now coming back to the argument advanced by the revision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
petitioner, he would submit that since R.C.O.P.No.26 of 2013 was
allowed on 02.05.2017, directing the revision petitioner to deposit the
entire arrear amount. Bur, contrary finding is recorded by the Rent
Controller stating that there is wilful default of payment of rent. So this
according to him, will not go together. Apart from that he would also
submit that when advance amount of Rs.60,000/- lies in the hands of
respondent, the question of wilful default will not arise in view of the
settled position of law.
13.For that purpose, he would rely upon the Judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in the case of K.Narasimha Rao Vs.
T.M.Nasimuddin Ahmed, (1996) 3 SCC 45. It is settled position of law,
that when landlord is in excess of the two months rent as advance, then
question of wilful default may not arise.
14.The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that even
after filing the petition in R.C.O.P.No.26 of 2013 and the order thereon
the revision petitioner was not prompt in depositing in the monthly rent.
As usual he allowed the Rent arrear pile up and used to deposit the rent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
in lumsum, which according to him, will also show the mental condition
of the revision petitioner to commit default.
15.For that purpose he would rely upon the following judgments.
1. The Judgment of this Court made in the case of B.Anraj Pipada
Vs. V.Umayal reported in MANU/TN/1126/1998,
2. The Judgment of this Court made in the case of Magestice
Leatherware Vs. Govinda Chetty reported in
MANU/TN/0203/1999 and
3. The Judgment of this Court made in the case of Devan Vs.
S.Ebinezar Rober in C.R.P.(PD).No.1766 of 2021, dated
06.03.2024.
16.Against these judgments the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner relied upon the Judgment of this Court made in the case of
Y.R.Prasanna and another Vs. Indira Raveen reported in 2020-5-L.W.
481, for the purpose of argument that the cause of action, which arises
subsequent to the filing of these two petitions was not available on the
date of eviction petition. Subsequent conduct of the revision petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
ought not to have taken into account by the appellate Court.
17.Again in response to this argument, the learned counsel for the
respondent draw the attention of this Court to the deposit receipts copy
showing the date of deposit by the revision petitioner. So as mentioned
by the respondent herein it is true that the revision petitioner was not
prompt even in depositing the rent amount even after passing of the order
in R.C.O.P.No.26 of 2013. He allowed the Rent to accumulate and used
to deposit occasionally.
18.As mentioned above, when there is a clear contract between the
parties to pay the enhanced rent, the attempt on the part of the revision
petitioner to pay and deposit the original rent itself may not be proper. It
shows his mental state. The landlord cannot be driven and wait for
several months to claim the rent amount. In spite of the order passed by
the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.26 of 2013, the revision petitioner
was not prompt in complying the order and used to take advantage of the
position that he was already granted a permission by the Court to deposit
the amount and that order to his advantage. This sort of attitude cannot
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
be encouraged. Order of the Court compels to the parties to perform
particular act in particular manner.
19.There is specific direction in R.C.O.P.No.26 of 2013 to deposit
the monthly rent on succeeding month on or before 5th. That was violated
with impunity. Now the petitioner cannot say that subsequent conduct
ought not to have been taken into account by the appellate authority, of
course by this Court also.
20.No doubt, that excess of two months rent was in the hands of
the respondent as advance amount. But, the arrears exceeds the advance
amount. The very fact that he is not interested to pay enhanced rent will
amount to clear wilful default.
21.On the sole ground, I am of the considered view that revision
petitioner does not reserves any indulgence from this Court. I find no
error or illegality in the order passed by the appellate authority
confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
22.The revision petitioner fails and accordingly, this civil revision
petition stands dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
TM
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Rent Control Appellate Authority,
Tirunelveli.
2.The I Additional District Munsif, I Additional District Rent Controller ,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Section Officer,
E.R.Section/V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
G.ILANGOVAN,J.
TM
24.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/03/2025 05:49:19 pm )
