Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 542 (MAD)

Pandi and others v. Seeniammal

2004-03-26

M.THANIKACHALAM

body2004
ORDER: The tenants, aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Courts below concurrently, are the revision petitioners. This order shall dispose of the above C.R.Ps. 2. The landlady/respondent in all the C.R.Ps. is one and the same, who had filed the eviction petitions, against various tenants. The Rent Controller, as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority passed common orders and in this view, all the C.R.Ps. are clubbed and a common order is passed. 3. The respondent herein as landlady had filed R.C.O.P.Nos.30, 31, 32 and 33 against the tenants/revision petitioners, for their eviction on the grounds of willful default, as well as for her bona fide requirement, for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. In all the R.C.O.Ps., it is the specific case of the landlady, that she had purchased the property from its original owner on 16.9.1992 and the fact of sale was informed to all the tenants, requesting them to attorn her and pay the rents. It is the further case of the landlady, that all the tenants have failed to pay the rents from Puratatasi (September) 1992, thereby they have committed willful default, making themselves liable to be evicted from the premises. It is the further case of the landlady, that in that area there are nine tenements and the entire area, including the premises occupied by the tenants, in this case, is required for demolition and reconstruction, since the buildings are very old, constructed with mud wall and thatched roof. Further, the landlady alleging that she is having sufficient means, for demolition and reconstruction, labelling her claim as bona fide, moved the Courts below, for eviction. 4. All the rent control original petitions have been opposed by the tenants respectively, contending that the quantum of rent claimed by the landlady is incorrect, that despite the fact, rents were sent by money orders, the landlady i.e., the petitioner, as well as her predecessors in title had refused to receive the same and therefore, the non-payment of rent, if any, will not amount to default, much less willful default. The further contention of the tenants is, that the buildings are in sound condition, that it does not require any demolition and reconstruction and this ground is projected only to evict the tenants, without bona fide. 5. The further contention of the tenants is, that the buildings are in sound condition, that it does not require any demolition and reconstruction and this ground is projected only to evict the tenants, without bona fide. 5. The Rent Controller, as well as the Appellate Authority, in all the cases, considering the rival claims of the parties, as well as scanning the materials placed before them came to the conclusion, that the rents claimed by the landlady, respectively are correct, which are payable according to English calendar month, that the tenants having knowledge that the petitioner had purchased the property, intentionally in order to give trouble to the landlady, the tenants failed to pay rents, which amounts to willful default and that the requirement of the petitioner in all the cases is bona fide, for the purpose of demolition and erection of a new building in that site after demolition. The orders of the Courts below are under challenge in these revision petitions. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants submit, that the tenants had periodically sent the rent to the landlady and in fact, only the landlady had refused to receive the rent, which cannot be termed as default, much less willful default and the result should be, the landlady should be non-suited, to evict these tenants, under the ground of willful default. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants is that the buildings in question are in sound condition and the alleged requirements of the landlady for demolition and reconstruction, is not bona fide. 7.Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlord/respondent submits, that both the Courts below, based on facts, considering the materials from proper perspective, reached a fact finding concurrently, which is not liable to be challenged before this Court, since there is no error either on fact or on law. In this view, supporting the findings of the Courts below, the main thrust of the landlady is, that the revisions are devoid of merits. 8. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlady, both the Courts below have come to an irresistible conclusion, based on evidence, that the tenants had committed willful default and the premises are required, for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction, having the coating of bona fide. 8. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlady, both the Courts below have come to an irresistible conclusion, based on evidence, that the tenants had committed willful default and the premises are required, for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction, having the coating of bona fide. By going through the materials, as well as the judgments rendered by the Courts below, I am unable to find out any error either on facts or on law and in fact, the well considered judgments of the Courts below would indicate, that the orders are unassailable, on facts, having the smell of legality. In this view, under the revisional jurisdiction, concurrent findings cannot be disturbed and all the findings deserve confirmation. 9. The learned counsel for the tenants submits, that the non-payment of rent, if any, would have occasioned, because of the fault committed by the present landlady, as well as the erstwhile landlord, in not informing the sale in favour of the present landlady and in this view, they should not be labeled as willful defaulter, imposing the penalty of eviction. By going through the materials as well as the action initiated against the original landlord as well as the landlady husband, I am unable to fix my seal of approval to the above said contention. 10. The original owner of the demised premises is Subramaniam. It is an admitted position, that these respondents have occupied the premises, as tenants, only under him, agreeing to pay rent, whatever, may be the quantum. From the said Subramaniam alone, the respondent herein had purchased the properties on 16.9.1992. Under the above circumstances, the landlady is entitled to receive the rent. An attempt is made on behalf of the tenants, to say that the fact of purchase of the property in favour of this landlady had not been informed to the tenants, either by her or by the previous landlord and therefore, the tenants have periodically sent the rent through money order, which was refused by the then landlord and in this view, the non-payment of rent cannot be termed as willful default. This submission is quite against the evidence and in fact, the evidence available on the side of the tenants itself would show, that all the tenants were aware of the fact that this landlady had purchased the property on 16.9.1992. 11. This submission is quite against the evidence and in fact, the evidence available on the side of the tenants itself would show, that all the tenants were aware of the fact that this landlady had purchased the property on 16.9.1992. 11. The tenants, apprehending disturbance from the original landlord, as well as from the subsequent purchaser of the demised premises, had filed a suit O.S.No.235 of 1992 for permanent injunction, claiming that they should not be evicted, without due process of law. In that suit, the original landlords Subramaniam, Poopandi, Kodipuli and one Thonthidevan had been shown as defendants. The said Thonthidevan is the husband of this landlady. R.W.1 admits that there was a negotiation for the sale of the demised premises in the year 1992 and all the tenants have offered to purchase the property, which was refused by the original landlord. He further admits, while O.S.No.235 of 1992 was pending the property was purchased by Thonthidevan in the name of his wife i.e., the present landlady. Thus, it is seen the tenants are fully aware of the fact, that the original landlord ceased to have any interest in the demised premises and the same was acquired by the present respondent. The position being so, as established, the tenants ought to have sent the rent attorning the landlady on and from 16.9.1992 to the respondent landlady, it is not their case. 12. As far as the quantum of rent is concerned, though a feeble attempt was made in the counter, to say that the rent claimed by the landlady is not correct, even by the own showing of the tenants, it is proved, what is the rent claimed by the landlady from each tenant is absolutely correct. Therefore, the agreed rent ought to have been paid as per the agreement, if there is no agreement, at least on or before the last date of the succeeding month, for which the rent is due. Admittedly, from Purattasi (September) 1992, rent has not been paid. If the tenant is entitled to be protected from unlawful eviction, the provisions of the Act, expect certain duties and obligations from the tenant and that obligation is prompt payment of rent. Though it is said, rents were paid periodically, through money order, to the landlord, it is admittedly not to the respondent landlady. If the tenant is entitled to be protected from unlawful eviction, the provisions of the Act, expect certain duties and obligations from the tenant and that obligation is prompt payment of rent. Though it is said, rents were paid periodically, through money order, to the landlord, it is admittedly not to the respondent landlady. It seems, rent was sent to the erstwhile landlord, who is not entitled to receive the rent, because of the fact he had conveyed the property to the respondent/landlady and in this view, he rightly refused to accept the rent. The tenants, at least thereafter, ought to have tendered the rent to the respondent/landlady, which they failed to do so. Instead of adopting the correct procedure and instead of tendering the amount to the subsequent purchaser, knowing that the original landlord is not entitled to receive the rent, the tenants sent the rent to Subramaniam. As seen from money order coupons, only one month rent has been sent to Subramaniam. If it is to be construed that the tenants have not committed willful default on the basis that they seen the M.Os. which were refused, then it should be shown that they have tendered the rents through M.O., not only for that month, but also the accumulated rent, for previous months. Hence admittedly M.Os. were sent as a rent fro one month and the arrears of rent were not sent. Only in order to evade the responsibility and to escape from the liability, to show as if the tenants have no committed willful default, an attempt is made to send the rent to erstwhile landlord and this act of the tenants, certainly will not receive them from the acts committed viz., willful default. Law provides, if the landlord failed to receive the rent, deposit of the same into Court, by issuing notice, which is also not adopted in this case. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, both the Courts below have come to a just conclusion, labeling these tenants, as willful defaulters, requires confirmation, ordering eviction. 13. The landlady wants to demolish the existing superstructure and proposed to erect a new building in the site. For that purpose she requires the premises, projecting that her claim is bona fide. 13. The landlady wants to demolish the existing superstructure and proposed to erect a new building in the site. For that purpose she requires the premises, projecting that her claim is bona fide. As per the findings of the Courts below, based on evidence, which cannot be disturbed, the buildings are not only old, though not threatening to fall, but they are not in sound condition. The buildings in question are constructed with mud wall, having thatched roof, and there could be no longevity. Considering the flimsy super-structure available on ground, the petitioner wants to demolish the same and put up a new superstructure, which cannot be termed as mala fide. In this area, there are ten number of tenements and as disclosed by the evidence, except these tenants, other tenants have vacated the premises and those places are vacant, which is also admitted by R.W.1. If, only these tents are evicted, the landlady can have a construction spreading over the entire area. The petitioner claims that she is having means which is accepted by R.W.1 also. R.W.1 says that Thontithevar, the husband of the landlady is a man of means, since he is owning two houses and ‘Karikadai’. It is also admitted by R.W.1 that he is doing very good business. Therefore, taking aid from the husband, the petitioner wants to construct a new building, after the demolition of the existing structure. It is also not the case of the tenants that the respondent/landlady has no means for demolition and reconstruction and on this point also, no argument was advanced before me. The original landlord himself has prepared the plan and got the approval as evidence by the documents, which is also not challenged by the tenants. The documents would go to show, that Subramaniam himself had prepared the plan and got the approval, which can be relied on by the subsequent purchaser viz., the respondent landlady. Thus, the landlady has proved not only the bad shape and the oldness of the building, but also her means to demolish and reconstruct the building, as well as the preparation made by her, including that of her predecessors in title. It is admitted by R.W.1 that buildings are construed with unburnt bricks, having coconut leaves as roof, which will not have permanent life. It is admitted by R.W.1 that buildings are construed with unburnt bricks, having coconut leaves as roof, which will not have permanent life. The landlady instead of renovating the building often, proposed to construct a permanent building and considering the existing structure, as well as the other tenants have been evicted from the other portion of the premises, it should be construed, that the requirement of the landlady is bona fide. To doubt about the bona fide of the landlady, nothing is materially elicited. 14. The tenants, who were hoping to purchase the tenements, from the year 1992, unable to compete with the respondent landlady, refused not only to vacate the premises, but also committed willful default in payment of rent, probably to wreck vengeance. These kind of tenants are not entitled to be protected under law. 15. The Courts below, considering the existing superstructure and its condition, as well as the means of the landlady, had satisfied about the bona fide requirement, for which I am subscribed my view also. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions are devoid of merits and no reason is available for the interference, exercising revision jurisdiction. 16. All the revision petitions are dismissed, confirming the order of eviction. Time for vacating the premises three months. No costs.