Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 429 (MAD)

Tajunnisa v. K. S. Ramamoorthi

1998-03-17

S.JAGADEESAN

body1998
Judgment : 1. The petitioner is the tenant under the respondent. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.319 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Controller, Trichy to evict the petitioner herein on the ground of wilful default and requirement of the building for his own occupation. The case of the respondent is that the monthly rent is Rs.275 and the petitioner did not pay the rent for the period from 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1986 and hence the petitioner is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the monthly rent is only Rs. 175 and the claim of the landlord is much higher than the agreed rent, which the petitioner is not liable to pay. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record the Rent Controller by his order dated 30.9.1994 has allowed the R.C.O.P. and ordered eviction, finding that the agreed rent is Rs.275 per month and the petitioner has failed to pay the rent from 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1986 and as such he has committed wilful default. So far as the other ground for eviction, that is the requirement of the building for owners occupation is concerned, the Rent Controller has rejected the claim of the landlord, finding that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord in requiring the building for his own occupation. 3. As against the said judgment of the Rent Controller, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.79 of 1994 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Sub Judge), Trichy. The appellate authority also concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal by his judgment dated 23.9.1997, as against which the present revision has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner tenant contended that the landlord himself has produced Ex. A10 the rent agreement which clearly reveals that the agreed rent is only Rs. 175, when the terms of the agreement is in a written document, the parties cannot be permitted to let in oral evidence contrary to the same and as such the authorities below have committed an error in accepting the oral evidence of the landlord in respect of the monthly rent and found that the same is Rs.250 per month. 175, when the terms of the agreement is in a written document, the parties cannot be permitted to let in oral evidence contrary to the same and as such the authorities below have committed an error in accepting the oral evidence of the landlord in respect of the monthly rent and found that the same is Rs.250 per month. The other ground raised by the counsel for the appellant is the Income Tax return submitted by the landlord is a self-serving document and the same cannot be relied upon. 5. I carefully considered both the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. It is true that oral evidence cannot be permitted to contradict the terms of the written agreement. In this case, the Ex. A-10, the written agreement is dated 20.4.1977. The R.C.O.P. has been filed in the year 1986. Naturally, for nearly ten years, it cannot be said that there was no enhancement of rent especially when the petition premises is a nonresidential one. Hence when the landlord claims that there was periodical revision in the rent, his oral evidence coupled with the Income-tax return filed by him had been accepted by the authorities below. The Income-tax return being a document in the regular course of business can be accepted. It may be pertinent to note that by showing the rental Income more than what he is actually receiving, the landlord commits himself to pay the tax at higher rate by increasing his income. Unless factually the landlord receives such a rental income, he is not going to be benefited by showing the enhanced rental income in his return. Hence there is no illegality in accepting the oral evidence of the landlord along with the Income-tax return produced by him to ascertain the monthly rent of the premises. Both the Authorities below have taken into consideration all these facts and found that the monthly rent is Rs.275 and the contention of the tenant that the monthly rent on the date of filing the eviction petition was only Rs.175 found to be false. As the finding is based on the appreciation of evidence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders of the Authorities below. Accordingly the orders of the authorities below are confirmed and the civil revision petition is dismissed. 6. Counsel for the petitioner requests time for the petitioner to vacate. As the finding is based on the appreciation of evidence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the orders of the Authorities below. Accordingly the orders of the authorities below are confirmed and the civil revision petition is dismissed. 6. Counsel for the petitioner requests time for the petitioner to vacate. Considering the fact that the petition premises is a non-residential one, the petitioner is granted four months time to vacate and handover vacant possession to the respondent, on filing an affidavit of undertaking before this court within ten days to that effect.