Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1435 (MAD)

Manoj Jain v. Ahamadunnisa Begum

2012-03-20

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The respondent herein filed RCOP.No.1889 of 2009 for eviction of the petitioner / tenant on the ground of willful default in payment of rent and that was ordered and the same was confirmed in RCA.No.517 of 2010 on the file of the VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed by the Petitioner / Tenant. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that both the Courts below ordered eviction holding that the revision petitioner / tenant committed willful default in payment of rents and the revision petitioner sent the rents from the month of February 2009 and March 2009 by way of cheques and that was refused by the respondent / landlord and the revision petitioner /tenant was sending the rents from April 2009 to August 2009 also through cheques and all those cheques were refused by the respondent / landlord and therefore, it cannot be stated that the revision petitioner has committed willful default in payment of rent. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also filed an additional typed set of papers and attempted to substantiate his case from the documents filed in the additional typed set of papers. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent / landlord submitted that the documents enclosed along with the additional typed set of papers were not filed before the Courts below and therefore, those documents are not to be taken into consideration. He further submitted that the petition was filed for eviction on the ground of willful default in payment of rents. The revision petitioner committed default in payment of rents from the month of February 2009 to August 2009 and the revision petitioner sent the rents for the month of February 2009 and March 2009 by way of cheques belonging to Chanderiwala Modi Brothers. As the cheques were issued by a stranger, the respondent requested the revision petitioner to send another cheque in his own name and even thereafter, the revision petitioner did not send the cheques in his own name. But, the revision petitioner / tenant sent a reply stating that the Chanderiwala Modi Brothers is the proprietor of the concern and enclosed the four cheques in the name of the said concern. But, the revision petitioner / tenant sent a reply stating that the Chanderiwala Modi Brothers is the proprietor of the concern and enclosed the four cheques in the name of the said concern. As the cheques were issued by a different person, they were not received and thereafter, no attempt was made by the revision petitioner to pay the rentsand only on 30.08.2010 a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.47,520/- towards rents for the months from February 2009 to July 2010 and even thereafter, no amount was paid towards the during the pendency of the appeal and considering all these aspects, the Courts below have rightly ordered the eviction. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon the judgments in Mr.V.SubramanianVs. Mr.J.Venkatramanand another reported in2004 – 3 – L.W. 487 and also in PurandaraVittal Vs. Mrs.Radha Bai reported in 1998 (I) CTC 531 in support of his contentions stating that when rent was tendered which was refused by the landlord, there is no need to tender the same again and when the entire arrears of rent were paid on the first hearing of the petition, there is no willful default. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgments inShantilalM.Bhayani Vs. Shanti Bai reported in 1997 I MLJ page 681 and also in Poorman'sDepot Registration firm by its President, Rathinasabapathi Vs. P.R.M.A.Krishnanreported in 1997 II MLJ page 467, and order passed by me in CRP.No.4140 of 2011, dated 23.01.2012 in the matter of Mr.K.Adhikesavan Vs. D.T.Eswaran and contented that as per the judgments referred to above, when the revision petitioner / tenant commits default in payment of rents, even during the pending of the Rent Control proceedings, he is liable to be evicted. 6. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the respondent / landlord filed RCOP.No.1889 of 2009 on the ground of willful default stating that the revision petitioner / tenant committed default in payment of rents from the months of February 2009 to August 2009. That petition was filed on 03.09.2009. 6. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the respondent / landlord filed RCOP.No.1889 of 2009 on the ground of willful default stating that the revision petitioner / tenant committed default in payment of rents from the months of February 2009 to August 2009. That petition was filed on 03.09.2009. It is admitted by the respondent that February 2009 and March 2009 rents were sent by the revision petitioner through cheques on 05.03.2009 and 05.04.2009 and the cheques belongs to Chanderiwala Modi Brothers and therefore, the Respondent / Landlord sent a letter dated 07.07.2009, Ex.P2 requesting the Revision Petitioner / Tenant to issue a cheque which stands in his own name. That was replied by the Revision Petitioner / Tenant under Ex.P3 stating that Chanderiwala Modi Brothers is a proprietary concern and he is the proprietor. He further stated that the cheques already sent were also enclosed. It is seen from Ex.P3 that there was no enclosure as stated in the letter. No cheques as stated in the letter were enclosed along with Ex.P3. Therefore, even assuming that the respondent / landlord refused to receive the rents from the months of February 2009 and March 2009 no further attempt was made by the Revision Petitioner / Tenant either to deposit the rent into the Court or to pay the rent directly. Admittedly only in August 2010 a sum of Rs.47,520/- representing 18 months rents was tendered by the revision petitioner. RCOP.No.1889 of 2009 was ordered on 13.07.2010 and the revision petitioner / tenant was directed to pay rent from September 2009 to July 2010. No attempt was made by the revision petitioner to pay the rents and only after eviction order was passed in RCOP.No.1889 of 2009 he tendered the rents for 18 months. Further even during the pendency of the appeal no rent was paid. 7. In these circumstances as held by this Court in the judgment in Poorman'sDepot Registration firm by its President, Rathinasabapathi Vs. P.R.M.A.Krishnan reported in 1997 II MLJ 467 when the revision petitioner / tenant has committed default in payment of rents even during the pendency of the rent control proceedings the default is nothing but willful. Further in the judgment in SanthilalM.Bhayani Vs. P.R.M.A.Krishnan reported in 1997 II MLJ 467 when the revision petitioner / tenant has committed default in payment of rents even during the pendency of the rent control proceedings the default is nothing but willful. Further in the judgment in SanthilalM.Bhayani Vs. Shanti Bai reported in 1997 1 MLJ Page 681, this Court has held that when the revision petitioner / tenant has sent the rents in the name of partnership firm and continued to send the rents even after refusal by the respondent / landlord to receive the same, will only prove that the default committed by the revision petitioner / tenant is intentional and deliberate and is liable to be evicted. In CRP.No.4140 of 2011, dated 23.01.2012, I also, I took the same view. Therefore, having regard to the conduct of the revision petitioner is not paying the rent even after filing of the application for eviction and paid the rents for 18 months only after the order of eviction was passed, in my opinion the Revision Petitioner / Tenant committed willful default in payment of rents during the pendency of the appeal and considering all those aspects, the Courts below have rightly ordered eviction and I do not want to interfere with the order of the Courts below and the revision is dismissed. M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed. No costs.