Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4569 (MAD)

Ramalu Naidu v. N. R. Rajarajan

2014-12-11

M.DURAISWAMY

body2014
Judgment : 1. The Civil Revision Petition arises against the fair and decreetal order passed in R.C.A.No.81 of 2007, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruchirappalli, confirming the fair and decreetal order passed in R.C.O.P.No.22 of 2002, on the file of the Rent Controller, I Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy. 2. The tenants are the petitioners and the respondents are the landlords. The respondents/landlords filed R.C.O.P.No.22 of 2002 for eviction on the ground of willful default, owners' occupation and sub- letting. It is a case of the landlords that the petition property was let out to one S.P. Govindarajulu Naidu on a monthly rent of Rs.700/-p.m. Thereafter the rent was enhanced to Rs.850/- per month. After the death of Govindarajulu Naidu, the first petitioner was not in the habit of paying the rent regularly. From the month of March 1997, the first petitioner willfully defaulted from paying the rent. On 06.01.1999, the first petitioner sent an amount of Rs.17,850/- through a demand draft said to be the rent from 15.04.1997 to 05.12.1998. 3. As per the understandings the rent should be paid on or before the 5th day of every succeeding calender month. The second petitioner firm represented by one T.Srinivasan has filed a suit in O.S.No.1206 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Trichirapalli for permanent injunction, restraining the landlords from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property, except under due process of law. The first petitioner has not paid the rent for the month of March 1997 upto January 1998. The first petitioner has not stated anything about the second petitioner firm in his letter dated 06.01.1999. 4. After the filing of the suit, the landlords came to know that the first petitioner has inducted the second petitioner in the premises under the guise that it is a partnership firm, in which he is one of the partners. The induction of the firm in the property without the consent of the landlords amount to sub-letting of the premises. On 13.09.1999, an amount of RS.6,800/- was sent through a demand draft along with a covering letter. The demand draft was returned by the landlords because it was sent on behalf of the second petitioner firm and not by the first petitioner. On 13.09.1999, an amount of RS.6,800/- was sent through a demand draft along with a covering letter. The demand draft was returned by the landlords because it was sent on behalf of the second petitioner firm and not by the first petitioner. Thereafter on 06.04.2001, the first petitioner in the capacity as the partner of the second petitioner has sent notice through his advocate calling upon the landlords to specify a bank account to deposit the rent. Since the second petitioner is not a lawful tenant, the landlords had not sent any reply. Further the landlords require the premises for their own occupation because their family is going to start their family business at Trichy. In these circumstances, the landlords filed R.C.O.P. for eviction on the ground of willful default, sub-letting and owners' occupation. 5. The tenants contended that they have not committed any default in paying the monthly rent and that the landlords used to receive cumulative rents in lump sum. Accordingly the petitioners paid Rs.17,850/- on 06.01.199 towards rental arrears from 15.04.1997 to 05.12.1998 and Rs.6,800/- from January 1999 to August 1999. The first petitioner is the partner of the second petitioner firm. The first petitioner is doing business in partnership with other partners. The first petitioner is in possession of the partnership business. The return of the rent of Rs.6,800/-sent by the second petitioner is an after thought by the landlords. The landlords do not require the premises for their own occupation. The landlords are not trading family. The requirement of own occupation is malafide. In these circumstances, the petitioners prayed for dismissal of R.C.O.P. 6. Before the Rent Controller, on the side of the landlords P.W.1 was examined and three documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked and on the side of the tenant, R.W.1 was examined and two documents viz., Exs.R.1 and R.2 were marked. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of willful default and sub-letting and rejected the ground of own use and occupation. 7. Aggrieved over the same, the tenants preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.81 of 2007 and the Rent Control Appellate Authority also confirmed the order of eviction granted by the Rent Controller on the said two grounds. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 9. 7. Aggrieved over the same, the tenants preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.81 of 2007 and the Rent Control Appellate Authority also confirmed the order of eviction granted by the Rent Controller on the said two grounds. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 9. On a careful consideration of the materials available on records and the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side, it is an admitted fact that the monthly rent for the petition property was Rs.850/-. It is not in dispute that the tenant paid a sum of Rs.17,850/- towards the rental arrears from 15.04.1997 to 05.12.1998. Thereafter the another sum of Rs.6,800/-was sent to the landlords by demand draft. However the landlords refused to receive the same for the reason that the said rent was sent by the second petitioner who is a sub-tenant. The mere fact that the landlords refused to receive the rent itself will show that the landlords were not receiving the rent in lump sum and the tenant had committed default in paying the rent regularly. There is no agreement between the parties that the tenant can pay the rent in lump sum. 10. In the case on hand, admittedly the rents were paid in lump sum. The tenant is not in a position to prove that there was an agreement to pay the rent in lump sum. Even if the advance amount is in the hands of the landlords, unless there was a specific agreement to adjust the same towards the rent, the non-payment of rent as and when it becomes due would become default. In the case on hand, the tenant also submitted that he had not taken any steps to deposit the rent under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Only at later point, he had opted to file a petition in R.C.O.P.No.22 of 2002 under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for depositing the rent into the Court. In these circumstances, the default committed by the tenant in paying the monthly rent amounts to willful default and the Courts below rightly ordered eviction on the ground of sub-letting. 11. It was contended by the tenant that the first petitioner is a partner of the second petitioner firm. Therefore, there is no sub-letting. 12. In these circumstances, the default committed by the tenant in paying the monthly rent amounts to willful default and the Courts below rightly ordered eviction on the ground of sub-letting. 11. It was contended by the tenant that the first petitioner is a partner of the second petitioner firm. Therefore, there is no sub-letting. 12. When the first petitioner had converted his business as partnership firm and inducted several persons into it, he had changed the entity itself as a partnership firm, which is a different entity in the eye of law. That apart, the first petitioner had not obtained the consent of the landlords to use the premises for partnership business which is a totally different entity. The premises was utilised for the other business purpose. Therefore, the act of the first respondent amounts to subletting the property without the consent of the landlord. On the ground of sub-letting also, the Courts below rightly ordered eviction. So far as the order of reaction of the ground of own use and occupation is concerned, the landlord has not filed any appeal. Therefore, the finding of the Rent Controller has become final. 13. In these circumstances, the order of eviction by the Courts below on the ground of willful default and sub-letting are just and proper. I do not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs. 14. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants submitted that the petitioners may be granted 8 months' time for vacating the premises. The learned Counsel for the respondents/landlords has no objection for granting 8 months' time. 15. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side, I grant 8 months' time to the revision petitioners/tenants to vacate and hand over the vacant possession to the respondents/landlords without forcing them to initiate execution proceedings. The revision petitioners/tenants shall file an affidavit of undertaking to that effect on or before 18.12.2014 before the Registry.