Madras High Court
M.Divya vs A.V.R.Praveen on 8 January, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
CRP.No.5145 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 08.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
CRP.No.5145 of 2024
and CMP.No.28844 of 2024
M.Divya ... Petitioner
Versus
A.V.R.Praveen ... Respondent
Prayer: Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamilnadu Building Lease and Rent
Control Act, 1960 to set aside the judgment and decree passed in RCA.No.29 of
2023 by the Subordinate Court, Ambattur on 11.11.2024 confirming the fair and
decretal order passed in M.P.No.82 of 2018 in RCOP.No.42 of 2017 by the
District Munsif Court, Ambattur on 08.10.2018.
For petitioners : Mr.V.Raghavachari, Senior Counsel
for Mr.N.Elayaraja
For respondent : Mr.C.Shankar
ORDER
Challenge has been made to the order of the appellate Court confirming the
orders of the rent controller, wherein, a direction was given to the tenant to deposit
a sum of Rs.12 lakhs as arrears of rents within a period of 90 days.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Originally, the respondent has filed an eviction petition on the ground of
wilful default. It is the case of the landlord that he purchased the property in the
year 2016. After purchase of the property, the tenant entered into an agreement for
letting the premises towards rent of 1 lakh per month. As the rent has not been
paid regularly, an application has been filed under 10(2)(i) Tamilnadu Building
Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960. Pending the above application, MP.No.82 of
2018 filed under Section 11(4) of the Tamilnadu Buildings Lease and Rent
Control Act, 1960, wherein, the Trial Court directed the tenant to deposit a sum of
Rs.12 lakhs. The appellate authority also confirmed that order. Challenging the
same, the present revision has been filed.
3. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the
property originally owned by the revision petitioner's father and revision
petitioner, when they are in dire need of fund, they used to mortgage the property
and avail loan. Only in the loan transaction, the property has been knocked out. In
the counter, the very relationship of the landlord and tenant has been disputed, the
actual true facts has not been reflected since the counter has been filed by one of
the counsel who appeared for the landlord. To prove these facts before the Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
he may be given a chance to contest the matter. According to him, he already
deposited a sum of Rs.20 lakhs, pursuant to the direction of the Sub Court,
Ambattur while filing the appeal. Therefore, to show his bonafide-ness, he is also
prepared to deposit another Rs.25 lakhs and seeks to contest the matter on merits.
4. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
relationship has not been disputed in the counter and also application has been
filed for stay. Therefore, at this stage, the tenant cannot deny the title and
relationship of the tenant. As the amount has not been paid regularly till date, he
cannot be entitled to contest the proceedings.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record. The fact that
the property originally owned by the revision petitioner and his father has not been
disputed. Till today, they are in possession which is also not disputed. It is the
contention of the landlord that even after the sale of the property, the revision
petitioner entered into an agreement to pay monthly rent of 1 lakhs, since the
building is commercial in nature and also paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs advance by
cheque. However, the cheque has not been encashed. Be that as it may, the very
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
nature of the allegations raised in the revision and the fact that the property is
originally owned by the tenant and they are continuing the possession and the
manner in which the allegations raised against the lawyer who had filed a counter
on her behalf before the rent controller that he has appeared for the landlord in
other proceedings, this Court is of the view that one more chance may be given to
the tenant to substantiate all the allegations before the rent controller subject to the
deposit a sum of Rs.25 lakhs to the credit of RCOP on the file of District Munsif
Court, Ambattur. With regard to the pleadings made in the counter and other
aspects can be established in the proceedings and witnesses can be confronted
with their statement made in the form of affidavit as well as other proceedings.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside. The petitioner is
directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25 lakhs to the credit of RCOP on the file of
District Munsif Court, Ambattur within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this Order. On such deposit, the rent controller shall give
sufficient opportunities to the parties to make any additional pleas, if any and
dispose of the main RCOP within a period of four months thereafter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
07.01.2025
Index : Yes / No
Speaking/non speaking order
dhk
To,
1. The Sub Judge
Subordinate Court, Ambattur
2.The District Munsif
District Court Court, Ambattur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
dhk
08.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
