Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 98 (MAD)

Ramalingam v. Venkatesan Chettiar and others

2001-01-25

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2001
Judgment : The impugned orders of eviction by both the authorities below are sought to be challenged in this civil revision petition by the tenant. 2. The first respondent/ landlord filed an application for eviction in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 1988 on the file of Rent Controller, Tirukoilur on the grounds of wilful default, owners occupation and subletting. Both the authorities below though rejected the second and third prayers, ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default. Now, the present revision by the tenant, the petitioner herein is as against the said orders rendering the finding with reference to the wilful default. 3. Mr.V.Raghavachari, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that both the Courts below have not adverted to the vital materials and ordered eviction without valid reasons, especially when the landlord, the first respondent admitted that he received advance payment of Rs.3,000 and when the said sum was retained by him, the ground of wilful default could not be pleaded, since the said amount could be adjusted towards the arrears. 4. Refuting this submission, Mrs.Radha Gopalan, the learned counsel for the first respondent pleaded in justification of the orders passed by both the authorities below. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel on either side. 6. According to the landlord, the first respondent herein, one Kaluvaraya Padayachi, father of the petitioner and the second respondent herein, took possession of the building in question on agreeing to pay the rent of Rs.370 to the landlord, the first respondent herein in the year 1978. He died in November, 1987. The landlord received the amount upto October, 1987. Thereafter, he did not receive the rents from November, 1987 from the petitioner and the second respondent, who are the sons of the said Kaluvaraya Padayachi, even though they continued the business in the said premises. The landlord sent a notice on 1.2.1988 demanding the arrears of rent and delivery of the property, but the arrears was not paid. The landlord was in need of the premises in question, since he has to allot the said property to his four sons for doing their business. Recently, the premises in question was let out to the respondents 3 and 4 herein by way of subletting. 7. The landlord was in need of the premises in question, since he has to allot the said property to his four sons for doing their business. Recently, the premises in question was let out to the respondents 3 and 4 herein by way of subletting. 7. In the counter filed by the petitioner/ tenant, though he denied stating that the landlord is put to strict proof of these things, he did not specifically state that there was no arrears and he has paid the entire amount. 8. During the course of his deposition, P.W.1, the first respondent herein would admit that though he did not receive any advance from the petitioners father in the year 1978, he received only Rs.3,000 towards advance in the year 1985. It is also seen from the cross-examination that he admitted that upto December, 1987 he received the rent. Ex.B-2 also would show that the landlord made an entry acknowledging the receipt of the rental amount upto December. 9. Both the authorities on the basis of the materials gave finding that no arrears was paid from January, 1988 upto November, 1988 and the petition for eviction was filed by the landlord on 4.11.1988. The relevant portion of the finding is as follows: 10. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the rental amount was sent through money order and the same was refused to be received and sent back. For the refusal, explanation has been given that the said amount was only for April month, that too or Rs.300 and since entire arrears was not paid, the same was sent back. Thus, it is clear that on the date of the application, there were arrears of rent from January, 1988 upto November, 1988. 11. It is true that P.W.1 would admit that he received Rs.3,000 towards advance from the father of the petitioner in the year 1985. But, it is not the case of the tenant that he ever asked the first respondent/ landlord to adjust the said amount towards the arrears of rent. 12. Moreover, it is the specific statement by P.W.1 that he did not know that the rental amount was deposited into the Nedungadi Bank. The relevant statement is as follows: 13. But, it is not the case of the tenant that he ever asked the first respondent/ landlord to adjust the said amount towards the arrears of rent. 12. Moreover, it is the specific statement by P.W.1 that he did not know that the rental amount was deposited into the Nedungadi Bank. The relevant statement is as follows: 13. On the other hand, the petitioner/ tenant would admit in the cross-examination that he sent money order only for Rs.300 on 2.4.1988 and he did not send the total arrears from January, 1988 to April, 1988. The relevant portion of his admission in the cross-examination is as follows: 14. This admission would make it clear that the petitioners/ tenant did not make payment of the rents from January, 1988 to November, 1988. Even after filing of the application, he did not deposit the entire amount into the Court immediately within the period prescribed by law. 15. Moreover, as noted above, through money order he sent only Rs.300 in the month of April, even though he had admitted that the monthly rent was Rs.670 and from January, 1988 he did not pay any amount towards the arrears of rent. This conduct, in my view, as correctly pointed out by both the Courts below, is wilful default. 16. Though several decisions, namely, Hemavathiammal v. Valliammal (1999)3 MLJ. 110 : (1999)2 C.T.C. 487 have been cited by the counsel for the petitioner, these decisions would not be of any help to the petitioner, as in these decisions, on facts it has been held that it was not a wilful default. But, the case on hand would depict different facts which would clearly show that the petitioner/ tenant not only did not pay the amount to the landlord but also did not take any steps to deposit into the Court nor did he take any efforts to intimate to the landlord that he has taken steps for the deposit of the said amount in some Bank. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by both the authorities below. 17. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.14877 of 2000 is also dismissed.