Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2886 (MAD)

C. Saravanan v. V. M. Gangadharan

2012-07-09

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 2.3.2012 passed by the VI Small Causes Court Judge,(incharge of VII Small Causes Court, Chennai), confirming the order dated 10.11.2011 passed by the XVI Small Causes Court Judge, Chennai, in R.C.O.P.No.1708 of 2010, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the Rent Controller. 3. A thumb nail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision, in a few broad strokes can be encapsulated thus: (i) The respondent herein field the RCOP for eviction on the ground of 'wilful default' in paying the rents and also on the ground of causing 'nuisance'. (ii) The Rent Controller passed the order in the application filed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, mandating the revision petitioner herein/tenant thus: "In the result, the respondent is directed to pay or deposit the arrears of rent Rs.16,15,000/- up to January 2011 as claimed by the petitioner and further the respondent is directed to pay or deposit the rent from February 2011 to July 2011 @ Rs.2,15,000/- p.m.on or before 25.9.2011 failing which all further proceedings will be stopped in the main RCOP. (iii) However, the said order was not complied with. (iv) The revision petitioner herein/tenant filed an application before the Rent Controller to get set aside the conditional order passed relating to the deposit of rent, but that application was dismissed for default. (v) Whereupon two RCAs were focussed as against those two orders with delay petitions to get the delay condoned in filing the RCAs as against those orders. (vi) In the meanwhile, the main application filed under Section 11(4) of the Act also was allowed, as against which also one other RCA was filed with delay petition. (vii) The Rent Controller thought fit to allow the RCOP No.1708 of 2010, in view of the non-compliance with the order passed in the application filed under Section 11(4) of the Act, as against which, without any delay, the appeal RCA No.7 of 2012 was filed. (viii) The said appeal was taken up and summarily disposed of on the main ground that the earlier order for deposit of the arrears of rent was not complied with. 4. (viii) The said appeal was taken up and summarily disposed of on the main ground that the earlier order for deposit of the arrears of rent was not complied with. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the summary dismissal of the RCA, this civil revision petition has been focussed by the tenant on various grounds. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would implore and entreat that in this case repeatedly the authorities under the Rent Control Act did not give due opportunity to the tenant to prosecute his defence and that alone resulted in this impasse. 6. Whereas, the learned Senior counsel for the first respondent/landlord and the learned counsel for the second respondent/landlord in unison would put forth and set forth their arguements, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: The narration of facts would speak by themselves that the tenant was not at all sincere and diligent in depositing the arrears of rent as ordered by the Court. Pendente lite also there was no deposit of rent and in such a case, the tenant is having no locus standi to prosecute even the CRP, which had to be dismissed. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the learned Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act ought not have ordered eviction, despite non compliance with the order passed by the Rent Controller in mandating the tenant to deposit the arrears? 8. Indubitably and indisputably, as on this date, the total arrears of rent in respect of two portions comes to Rs.58,93,600/- (Rs.52,70,000/- + Rs.6,23,600/-). 9. This is singularly a singular case in which the first respondent is the absolute owner of one portion of the demised premises and he is a joint owner of the other portion of the demised premises along with the second respondent herein. The tenant happened to be the common tenant of both areas. As such, according to R1, as on this date the following amounts are his share of the arrears: As per order passed in M.P.No.82 of 2011 in RCOP No.1708 of 2010 Dated 20.8.2011 (the arrears of rent upto January, 2011) Rs.16,15,000/- From February 2011 to May 2012 at rate of Rs.2,15,000/- p.m. Rs.34,40,000/- Total arrears of rent upto May 2012 payable to the first respondent Rs.50,55,000/- + June 2012 Rs. 2,15,000/- Rs.52,70,000/- 10. 2,15,000/- Rs.52,70,000/- 10. According to the learned counsel for the second respondent, as on date, the arrears for his share comes to Rs.6,23,600/- as under: From March 2011 to June 2012 = Rs.6,23,500.00 (38,975 X 16) (-) Advance = Rs. 5,00,000.00 = Rs.1,23,600.00 11. Without any fear of contradiction, on behalf of R1, the learned Senior counsel would submit that a sum of Rs.13,50,000/-(rupees thirteen lakhs fifty thousand) was received as advance. If so, the arrears due payable in favour of the first respondent as on date would come to Rs.39,20,000/- (rupees thirty nine lakhs twenty thousand only). 12. Similarly, the learned counsel for R2, without any fear of contradiction would submit that his client received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(rupees five lakhs) as advance and in such a case, the arrears due payable in favour of the second respondent as on date would come to Rs.1,23,600/- (rupees one lakh twenty three thousand six hundred). 13. The core question arises as to whether the revision petitioner herein/tenant is justified in canvassing his case without paying the arrears of rent as set out supra, at least, after deducting the advance amounts paid to R1 and R2-the landlords. 14. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would narrate and detail, portray and project the case of the tenant to the effect that there was some agreement, which emerged between the tenant and the landlords at the time of taking the demised premises on rent and it was to the effect that the tenant himself should spend a sum of Rs.70,00,000/-(rupees seventy lakhs) for making the demised premises in a tenantable condition. Accordingly, the revision petitioner/tenant spent a sum of Rs.70,00,000/-(rupees seventy lakh) and that also has to be deducted and because of the absence of such deduction only, there appears to be arrears of rent, but in fact, there are no arrears at all. 15. This a very serious factual as well as a legal point. So it is a mixed question of law of fact which has to be decided only by the lower forum, at the appropriate stage. Without prejudice to the right of the tenant, the aforesaid arrears should be deposited with the Rent Controller within two months from this date, whereupon the Rent Control Appellate Authority, shall deal with the pending matters and dispose of them within a period of two months thereafter. Without prejudice to the right of the tenant, the aforesaid arrears should be deposited with the Rent Controller within two months from this date, whereupon the Rent Control Appellate Authority, shall deal with the pending matters and dispose of them within a period of two months thereafter. It is made clear that the amount deposited shall not be withdrawn without the permission of the Rent Controller. 16. So far this Civil revision petition is concerned, absolutely there is nothing to be decided, because the Rent Controller passed only consequential order in view of the non-compliance with the order passed in the application filed under Section 11(4) of the Act. As such, the ultimate orders in the matters pending before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, will have its own impact on the final order in the RCOP. 17. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.