Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1720 (MAD)

V. Raja v. Radhammal (Died)

2014-06-26

R.KARUPPIAH

body2014
Judgment : 1. The revision petitioner, who is a tenant filed this revision petition against the order and decreetal order dated 20.10.2006 made in R.C.A.No.16 of 2004 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority / Subordinate Court, Ranipet, confirming the order and decreetal order dated 15.04.2004, made in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 1999 on the file of District Munsif Court / Rent Controller, Sholinghur. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the respondents. 3. On the side of the respondents filed a petition for eviction under Section 10 (i)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the ground of wilful default. The rent controller discussed both sides oral and documentary evidence and finally held that the revision petitioner committed wilful default in payment of rent and hence, the respondents are entitled to evict the revision petitioner and allowed the petition accordingly. 4. The revision petitioner preferred Rent Control Appeal in R.C.A.No.16 of 2004 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Subordinate Judge, Ranipet and the the Appellate Authority also held that the revision petitioner committed wilful default as held by Rent Controller and therefore, the respondents are entitled the eviction of the revision petitioner on the ground of wilful default and dismissed the Rent Control Appeal. 5. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of both courts below, the revision petitioner preferred this civil revision petition. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner has not paid the rent every month and used to pay the rent by lump sum amount and the respondent herein accepted that lump sum payment. In the above said circumstances, both courts below have wrongly held that the revision petitioner committed wilful default in payment of rent. Further the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that as per PW1, who is grand son of the petitioner revealed that the revision petitioner was affected mentally and therefore, the deceased first respondent/petitioner in the original petition (land lady) not entitled to evict the revision petitioner since she was lunatic, at the time of filing the petition. 7. Further the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that as per PW1, who is grand son of the petitioner revealed that the revision petitioner was affected mentally and therefore, the deceased first respondent/petitioner in the original petition (land lady) not entitled to evict the revision petitioner since she was lunatic, at the time of filing the petition. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that both courts below have correctly discussed about the default committed by the revision petitioner and also the revision petitioner has failed to prove the fact that the respondent/landlady used to accept the rent in lump sum and not in every month. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that PW1 has not deposed as the revision petitioner was lunatic, and only deposed that she was mentally affected due to illness. Further, the respondent has not stated in the counter as the revision petitioner was lunatic at the time of filing the petition and on that ground this petition is not maintainable. In the above said circumstances, the contention of the revision petitioner cannot be accepted. 8. Admittedly, the revision petitioner has not paid the rent prior to issuance of Ex.P1 legal notice from 01.01.1999 to 19.04.1999 and Ex.P1 legal notice issued on 19.04.1999 and the above said notice was received by the revision petitioner and not sent any reply. But, the revision petitioner paid the above said rent arrears for January 1999 to March 1999, only on 26.04.1999 into the bank account of the revision petitioner. A perusal of oral and documentary evidence and also the discussion of both courts below revealed that the subsequent rent during the pendency of the proceedings also not paid by the revision petitioner regularly and only paid by lump sum amount for several months. The revision petitioner himself admitted, at the time of evidence that six months rent arrears paid only on 29.10.1999 and after that rent arrears for the period from 24.02.2000 to 27.09.2000 for seven months rent was paid only on 02.07.2003. Therefore, the above said conduct of the revision petitioner would clearly proved that the revision petitioner wilfully defaulted in payment of rent. Therefore, both courts below have correctly discussed the above said conduct of the revision petitioner and passed the order of eviction on the ground of wilful default. Therefore, the above said conduct of the revision petitioner would clearly proved that the revision petitioner wilfully defaulted in payment of rent. Therefore, both courts below have correctly discussed the above said conduct of the revision petitioner and passed the order of eviction on the ground of wilful default. Admittedly, the revision petitioner has not pleaded in the counter or at the time of evidence, the land lady was lunatic and not proved any evidence. PW1 has not stated land lady was lunatic, but only deposed as she was unwell and hence, not come to court to give evidence. The above said evidence of PW1 not sufficient to dismiss the petition as contended by the revision petitioner. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the above said concurrent findings of both courts below since the above said findings are not perverse or illegal. 9. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Time for vacating the premises is six months. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.