Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1231 (MAD)

M. Mangalamary v. Saradha

2012-03-07

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Tenants in R.C.O.P.Nos.304 of 1987, 98 and 99 of 1988 on the file of the Rent Controller, Coimbatore are the revision petitioners respectively in C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.699, 700 and 701 of 2011. 2. R.C.O.P.Nos.304 of 2007 was filed by the revision petitioner/tenant under section 8 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to deposit the rent and that application was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the same was confirmed in appeal and against the same, C.R.P.(NPD) No.699 of 2011 is filed. 3. The respective landlords filed R.C.O.P.Nos.98 and 99 of 1988 for eviction on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent and for demolition and reconstruction. The learned Rent Controller accepted the case of the landlords and ordered eviction and the same was confirmed in R.C.A.Nos.52 and 53 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore. Aggrieved by the same, C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.700 and 711 of 2011 are filed. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants that the courts below have found that the tenants have committed wilful default in the payment of rent only on the basis that the tenants have not followed the provisions of section 8 of the Act while depositing the rent and according to the revision petitioners, there is no arrears of rent as on date and they are in possession of the property for more than 40 years and the landlords/respondents have not proved the means to put up new construction and without verifying the bona fide requirement of the landlords and the means of the landlords, both the courts have ordered eviction. 5. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords submitted that the revision petitioners/tenants committed wilful default in the payment of rent and they have also set up title over the property on the basis of the oral agreement of sale and also filed O.S.No.1394 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore for specific performance of an oral agreement of sale and the suit was dismissed and based on the oral agreement of sale, they did not pay the rent from October 1987 till the date of filing of the application and even during the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority, they did not pay the rent and only after filing the revision, the entire arrears of rent was paid. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that both the authorities, on being satisfied with the means of the respondents and after taking into consideration the condition of the building, ordered eviction and therefore, the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the courts below need not be interfered with. 6. Heard both sides. It is not in dispute that the rent from October 1987 was paid by the revision petitioner only after filing the revision before this court and during the pendency of the proceedings before the courts below, the revision petitioners have taken the plea that they are in possession of the property pursuant to the agreement of sale and also filed O.S.No.1394 of 1987 and that suit was dismissed and even after dismissal of that suit, no attempt was made by the revision petitioners to pay the arrears of rent. Considering all these aspects, the courts below rightly held that the revision petitioners committed wilful default in the payment of rent. 7. It is stated in the eviction petition that the respondents/landlords want to put up new building for the purpose of their business and the building is also an old one and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he has also submitted his report stating about the condition of the building and on the basis of the commissioner's report, the courts below held that the building is an old one and the requirement of the landlords is also bona fide. Further, there is no dispute regarding the means of the landlords to put up new construction and when the landlords have got means and the building is in a dilapidated condition and the landlords want to construct a new building, the bona fide of the landlords cannot be doubted and both the courts below have rightly appreciated these aspects and held that the building is bona fide required by the landlords for immediate demolition and reconstruction. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the orders of the courts below. 8. In the result, the revisions are dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. 9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that considering the fact that the revision petitioners are residing for a long time, they may be given one year time to vacate an hand over possession. 10. Considering the fact that R.C.O.P for eviction was filed in the year 1988 and the tenants are able to withstand the eviction order for the past 24 years, I am not inclined to grant one year time and time is granted upto 31.10.2012 on condition of filing of affidavit of undertaking by all the revision petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The revision petitioners shall also continue to pay rent regularly without fail. If the revision petitioners fail to comply with any of the above conditions, it is open to the respondents/landlords to execute the order of eviction.