Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3892 (MAD)

P. Gopal v. M. Sunitha

2014-10-16

K.KALYANASUNDARAM

body2014
Judgment 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed in R.C.A.No.497 of 2011 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent/landlady filed an eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No.1837 of 2009 before the Rent Controller, Chennai, on the ground of willful default. The respondent has stated that the tenant has fallen arrears of rent from 05.01.2008 to 23.12.2008 at the rate of Rs.600/- per month amounting to Rs.7,200/-. The petitioner/tenant has filed counter and resisted the eviction petition. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition holding that there was no attornment of tenancy in favour of the landlady. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the landlady filed R.C.A.No.497 of 2011 before the Appellate Authority. In the appeal, the tenant filed a miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.534 of 2012 seeking permission of the Court to deposit the arrears of rent. However, the Appellate Authority rejected the said miscellaneous petition holding that the tenant has not chosen to deposit the rent during the pendency of the eviction petition before the Rent Controller and also failed to file the petition immediately after filing the appeal. The Appellate Authority having found that the tenant did not pay rent during the pendency of the eviction petition and the appeal, held that the tenant committed willful default and dismissed the appeal. 4. Challenging the said finding of the Appellate Authority the tenant has filed the present revision petition. 5. Heard Mr.K.P.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Saravanakumar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tenant has paid rent during the pendency of the eviction petition, but he failed to pay the rent regularly only during the appeal; that the tenant has paid Rs.30,000/- towards advance to the vendor of the respondent, the eviction petition was filed for the defaulted amount of Rs.7,200/-. Hence, the eviction petition itself is not maintainable in law. The learned counsel further submitted that the erstwhile owner viz., Mr.Harikrishnan has not informed the sale of the property to the Tenant in his notice dated 23.12.2008, which is marked as Ex.P.3; that there was no attornment of tenancy and therefore the respondent cannot claim as a landlady of the petition property. 7. The learned counsel further submitted that the erstwhile owner viz., Mr.Harikrishnan has not informed the sale of the property to the Tenant in his notice dated 23.12.2008, which is marked as Ex.P.3; that there was no attornment of tenancy and therefore the respondent cannot claim as a landlady of the petition property. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the eviction petition itself was filed on the ground of willful default, but the petitioner has not paid the rent even after filing of the eviction petition. It is further submitted that the subsequent conduct of the parties can be taken into account to decide the issue in the eviction petition. The learned counsel further submitted that the tenant has not produced any material to show the payment of rent during the pendency of the eviction petition and hence the order does not require any interference by this Court. 8. It is seen from the records that the petitioner had filed a miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.534 of 2012 seeking permission of the Rent Control Appellate Authority to pay rent to the landlady. It is admitted fact that the landlady filed the eviction petition on 28.08.2009 alleging that the tenant has defaulted in paying rent for the period between 5.01.2008 and 23.12.2008. The landlady filed the appeal in September 2011 contending that the tenant has not paid the rent even pending eviction proceedings. However, the tenant has chosen to file the miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.534 of 2012 only in July 2012. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has relied on the judgment of this Court reported in 2000 (1) MLJ 535 [M.Balu Vs. K.Jawahar and others] for the proposition that the subsequent conduct of the tenant can be taken into consideration to decide the issue involved in the eviction petition. 9. Though the tenant has contended that he paid rent pending R.C.O.P. but he has not produced any material to prove the fact. It is admitted by the petitioner/tenant that pending R.C.A., the tenant has not paid rent to the landlady from September 2011, but chose to file the petition only in July 2012 i.e., after lapse of eleven months. 10. It is settled law that in the eviction proceedings, the subsequent conduct of the parties can be taken into consideration. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has rightly found that the tenant has committed willful default and ordered eviction. 10. It is settled law that in the eviction proceedings, the subsequent conduct of the parties can be taken into consideration. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has rightly found that the tenant has committed willful default and ordered eviction. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.