Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 735 (MAD)

R. Parvathi and others v. Kaliyaperumal

2004-05-12

S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN

body2004
ORDER: The unsuccessful landlords before the Courts below are the revision petitioners in this civil revision petition. This civil revision petition is filed against the dismissal of the Rent Control Appeal filed by the landlords challenging the correctness of the dismissal of the rent control original petition filed for eviction of the respondent/tenant on the grounds of willful default in payment of rent and for demolition and reconstruction. 2. The landlords as petitioners filed the rent control original petition stating that the petition premises bearing door No.6 Kamakshi Amman Koil Street in Chidambaram Town, originally belonged to one Ranganathan, husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3. The respondent as a tenant took the said property on lease on 10.6.1986 on a monthly rent of Rs.375. The respondent/tenant paid rent till March, 1995 and on the death of Ranganathan, the petitioners have become owners of the petition premises. The respondent committed default in payment of rent willfully from 1.4.1995 to 31.10.1995. It is stated that the building is a tiled house and the first petitioner wants to settle down at Chidambaram, after demolishing the old house and after putting up a new construction, along with her son and daughter, viz., petitioners 2 and 3. It is further stated that a notice was issued by the petitioners calling upon the respondent/tenant to vacate the petition premises and hand over possession of the same for which the respondent sent a reply notice denying the allegations. In the reply notice, it is stated that he could not pay the rent because one Vaikuntham Pillai, who was acting as the agent of the deceased Ranganathan, did not come and collect the rent. It is also stated that the respondent sent a demand draft for Rs.2,625 towards the rent from April, 1995 to October 1995, which was received by the petitioners under protest. On these grounds, the petitioners/landlords sought for eviction of the respondent/tenant from the petition premises. 3. The respondent as tenant filed counter stating that the rent was paid to one Vaikuntham Pillai, who was acting as agent of the deceased Ranganathan, that after March, 1995, Vaikuntham Pillai did not come and collect the rent and that the petitioners, who were residing at Cuddalore, did not also come and collect the rent. 3. The respondent as tenant filed counter stating that the rent was paid to one Vaikuntham Pillai, who was acting as agent of the deceased Ranganathan, that after March, 1995, Vaikuntham Pillai did not come and collect the rent and that the petitioners, who were residing at Cuddalore, did not also come and collect the rent. It is stated that the respondent/tenant offered to buy the house when he came to know that the petitioners have proposed to sell the petition premises. The petitioners are owning a plot at Asiriyar Nagar and also another house in Chidambaram Town. It is further stated that on receipt of the notice, the entire rental amount was sent by demand draft and there will be no arrears of rent on the date of filing of the rent control original petition. The petitioners have no intention to put up new construction after demolishing the existing structure. The respondent/tenant repaired the backyard of the house, which fell down in June, 1996 and after such repair work, the petition premises is in good condition. On these grounds, the respondent/tenant sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. Before the Rent Controller, the first petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 while the respondent/tenant examined himself as R.W.1. Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked on the side of the petitioners while Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked on the side of the respondent. The Rent Controller, after considering the evidence adduced on both sides, found that the respondent/tenant has not committed willful default in payment of rent from April, 1995 to October, 1995 and that the requirement sought on the ground of demolition and reconstruction is mala fide and dismissed the rent control original petition. The appeal preferred by the landlords was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Challenging the said concurrent finding arrived at by the Courts below, the present civil revision petition has been filed by the landlords as revision petitioners. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/landlords and the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant. 6. The tenancy and the quantum of rent is admitted by the parties. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the respondent/tenant has committed willful default in payment of rent for the period from April, 1995 to October, 1995 and after the death of Ranganathan, the husband of the first petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 and 3. 6. The tenancy and the quantum of rent is admitted by the parties. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the respondent/tenant has committed willful default in payment of rent for the period from April, 1995 to October, 1995 and after the death of Ranganathan, the husband of the first petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 and 3. The Rent Control Petition was filed on 2.1.1996. Before filing the petition, the landlords caused lawyer’s notice Ex.A-1 dated 14.11.1995 to which the respondent/tenant replied through Advocate under Ex.A-2 on 27.11.1995 stating that since the petitioners have been residing at Cuddalore, the rent was collected by one Vaikuntham Pillai, as agent of the deceased Ranganathan, and on the death of Ranganathan, Vaikuntham Pillai did not come and collect the rent and the petitioners also did not come and collect the rent. Therefore, the rent could not be paid for the period from April, 1995 to October, 1995 and, therefore, on receipt of the said notice, they sent the rent for seven months from April, 1995 to October, 1995 by demand draft and it is also admitted by P.W.1 in her evidence. Therefore, inasmuch as the entire rental amount in respect of the period from April, 1995 to October, 1995 was paid as per demand draft, even before the filing of the rent control original petition, and also as admitted by P.W.1. in her evidence, it cannot be said that the respondent/tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent from April, 1995 to October, 1995. The respondent/tenant has sent the demand draft towards arrears of rent even before filing of the rent control original petition and within two months from the date of Ex.A-1 notice. Therefore, such default in payment of rent cannot be considered as wilful. 7. As regards the other ground of eviction sought viz., requirement of petition premises for demolition and reconstruction, the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Rent Control Appellate authority have arrived at the finding that the requirement on that ground is not bona fide. The petitioners are residing at Cuddalore and the petition premises is at Chidambaram. The husband of the first petitioner, Ranganathan Pillai, purchased the petition premises as per registered Sale Deed, Ex.A-3, dated 14.9.1978. The petition premises is a tiled house and the age of the petition premises is described as 65 years. The petitioners are residing at Cuddalore and the petition premises is at Chidambaram. The husband of the first petitioner, Ranganathan Pillai, purchased the petition premises as per registered Sale Deed, Ex.A-3, dated 14.9.1978. The petition premises is a tiled house and the age of the petition premises is described as 65 years. The built-up area is shown as 900 sq.ft. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he has filed his report Ex.A-6. It is stated that the petition building is a brick built one with country tiled roof. The walls comprise brick work with Mud-Mortar and plastered with cement Mortar and the age of the building will be more than 75 years old. However, no satisfactory evidence has been let in on the side of the revision petitioners/landlords to show that the petition premises is in dilapidated condition. 8. It is stated in Ex.A-1 notice as well as in the rent control original petition that the petitioners residing at Cuddalore intend to shift their house to Chidambaram for which purpose, the petition premises is required to demolish and to put up reconstruction. It is evident that the second petitioner is working in Cuddalore Central Co-operative Bank, which is only in Cuddalore and the third petitioner is working as a Lecturer in a College at Melmaruvathur and all the petitioners are residing in the new house put up at Cuddalore, that in the notice Ex.A-1 and in the rent control original petition, it is set out that the first petitioner intends to shift her house and to settle down at Chidambaram along with petitioners 2 and 3. It is stated by P.W.1 in her evidence that she alone intends to shift to Chidambaram. Both the petitioners 2 and 3 are also unmarried. The revision petitioners have to prove their intention for demolition and to reconstruct the petition premises as bona fide and not for the purpose of getting rid of tenants. The revision petitioners have to prove that the age and condition of the petition premises warrant demolition and reconstruction of the building and that they have got sufficient means to put up new construction after demolition. Inasmuch as the first revision petitioner alone intends to shift her residence from Cuddalore to Chidambaram, it cannot be said that mere intention of the petitioners seeking the petition premises for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide. 9. Inasmuch as the first revision petitioner alone intends to shift her residence from Cuddalore to Chidambaram, it cannot be said that mere intention of the petitioners seeking the petition premises for demolition and reconstruction is bona fide. 9. As regards means, P.W.1 has stated in her evidence that she is going to put up new construction from and out of the amount she is having in the fixed deposit. The approved plan was also not filed to carry out such demolition and reconstruction. The sanction has also not been obtained. Therefore, both the Courts below have rightly found that the requirement of the petition premises for demolition and reconstruction by the petitioners is not bona fide and such finding does not call for any interference and is to be confirmed. 10. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No cost. The concurrent finding of the Courts below is confirmed.