Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 659 (MAD)

V. Shanmuga Konar v. P. Subramanian

2004-04-16

A.R.LAKSHMANAN

body2004
Judgment :- 1. Civil Revision Petition No. 3565 of 2001 has been filed by one Shanmuga Konar who is the unsuccessful tenant before the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority has preferred the civil revision petition against the order passed by the Appellate Authority (II Additional Sub Judge) Tirunelveli in R.C.A. No. 39 of 1998 preferred against the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 74 of 1996. 2. Originally, R.C.O.P. No. 74 of 1996 was filed by one Ramalakshmi Ammal for eviction of the tenant Shanmuga Konar on three grounds viz., wilful default, committing act of waste and denial of title. After contest, the R.C.O.P. was allowed only on the ground of committing act of waste and the Rent Controller negatived the grounds of wilful default and denial of title. 3. Aggrieved against such eviction order, the tenant filed R.C.A. No. 39 of 1998 and the Appellate Authority also came to the conclusion that there is act of waste in a way to impair the utility and value of the building and dismissed the R.C.A. by confirming the order of the Rent Controller. 4. Aggrieved against such order, civil revision petition No. 3565 of 2001 has been filed by the tenant on the grounds that both the authorities below have not appreciated the evidence available on either side properly and in all, both the courts failed to note that the cattle shed and manure pit were in existence even at the time the tenant took the property on lease and that the tenant has not done any act of waste as alleged in the petition and thereby the order of eviction is liable to be set aside. 5. I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence available on either side in the light of the judgments of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority. From this, I am able to see that PW1 has given evidence that in the month of May 1995, the tenant sought permission for putting up cattle shed and digging manure pit and the same was refused and then in the month of December 1995, the tenant himself at his own instance, put up cattle shed and dug manure pit on the eastern side of the petition mentioned premises and thereby committed act of waste in a way to damage the building and impair the utility and value of the same. It is also to be noted that the counter filed by the tenant does not specifically deny the alleged act of waste during December 1995 and instead it goes to say only as if cattle shed and manure pit were already in existence. In this context, it is also to be noted that the stand of the tenant in the counter as well as in his evidence is that the premises along with the adjacent vacant site is the subject matter of the lease. At the same time, it is the stand of the landlady and the evidence of PW1 that the petition mentioned premises alone is the subject matter of the lease. It is also to be noted with significance that notice issued by the landladys counsel even though it is addressed to the tenant to the petition mentioned property, it has been returned by the tenant and there is no acceptable explanation for such refusal on the part of the tenant. The fact remains that there is cattle shed and manure pit. If really the tenant Shanmuga Konar has not put up the cattle shed and dug the manure pit, in normal prudence, the tenant would have removed the cattle shed and closed the manure pit and intimated the fact to the landlady and thereby shown his bona fide in keeping the building without giving room for damage to the value of the building, etc. But, it is not the conduct of the tenant. 6. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have come to the conclusion concurrently and given findings that the manure pit and the cattle shed have been put up in a way to damage and impair the utility and value of the building. Such concurrent finding, in my view, does not appear to be unreasonable and unjustified and hit by error or illegality. Consequently, there is no need for this court to interfere with such concurrent finding of both the courts through civil revision petition No. 3565 of 2001. Accordingly, this civil revision petition fails and deserves to be dismissed. 7. Such concurrent finding, in my view, does not appear to be unreasonable and unjustified and hit by error or illegality. Consequently, there is no need for this court to interfere with such concurrent finding of both the courts through civil revision petition No. 3565 of 2001. Accordingly, this civil revision petition fails and deserves to be dismissed. 7. As far as C.R.P. No. 3564 of 2001 is concerned, I am to point out that there is no proof to show that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the tenant Shanmuga Konar and one Subramaniam and that likewise, it is too much on the part of the tenant Shanmuga Konar to say as if the pass book in which the said Subramaniam would make entries for receipt of rents every month has not been returned to the tenant and that too when the tenant Shanmuga Konar has not chosen to take any steps against the said Subramaniam for getting back the pass book. It is also to be noted that the said Subramaniam has given evidence to the effect that the said Ramalakshmi Ammal who is the petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 74 of 1996 is the owner of the building and she only was receiving the rent from the tenant and likewise, it is not the specific conduct of the tenant Shanmuga Konar in R.C.O.P. No. 74 of 1996 to say as if the said Ramalakshmi Ammal is not the owner of the building and more particularly the very same tenant has given evidence in R.C.O.P. No. 74 of 1996 that he is not aware about the owner of the building. When that being so the evidence of the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 74 of 1996, it is surprising as to how he has filed this R.C.O.P. No. 112 of 1995 (against the said Subramaniam as respondent/landlord) for deposit of rents. This aspect has been clearly considered by the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 12 of 1997 and consequently, he reversed the order passed by the Rent Controller who allowed the tenant to deposit rents. 8. Therefore, in such circumstances, I am of the view that there is no acceptable or justifiable reason to interfere with such order in R.C.A. No. 12 of 1997 passed by the Appellate Authority, by this court through this revision petition. Accordingly, this civil revision petition also deserves to be dismissed. 9. 8. Therefore, in such circumstances, I am of the view that there is no acceptable or justifiable reason to interfere with such order in R.C.A. No. 12 of 1997 passed by the Appellate Authority, by this court through this revision petition. Accordingly, this civil revision petition also deserves to be dismissed. 9. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs.