Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1201 (MAD)

Muruganandham v. P. Ragavan

2015-03-01

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

body2015
Judgment :- 1. The revision petitions are filed by the tenant challenging the order dated 3/9/2007 made in R.C.A.Nos.25 of 1998 and 24 of 1998, confirming the order dated 27/11/1997 made in R.C.O.P.No.24 of 1995 and 20 of 1995. 2. R.C.O.P.No.20 of 1995 is filed by the revision petitioner who is the tenant under Section 8 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 seeking permission to deposit the rent into Court. 3. R.C.O.P.No.24 of 1995 is filed by the land lord, who is the respondent herein {C.R.P.NPD (MD) No.1211 of 2008} seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default and owners' occupation. 4. The contention of the tenant in the said petitions is that the lease property is a non-residential building. It was taken by him on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.250/- and a sum of Rs.12,000/- was paid as advance. It was contended by the tenant that as the rent due for the months of March to May 1992 was refused to be received by the landlord, without reason, he caused a legal notice on 22/6/1992 calling upon the landlord to name the Bank where he can deposit the rent. As there was no response, the tenant alleged to have sent a Money Order for Rs.750/- which was also refused by the landlord. Hence R.C.O.P.No.20 of 1995 was filed. 5. The said R.C.O.P was resisted by the landlord/respondent herein {C.R.P.NPD.(MD) No.1212 of 2008} denying the fact that he refused to receive the rents for the months of March to May 1992. It was further contended by the landlord that though the tenant promised to vacate the premises in April 1992 itself, he did not keep up his promise and continued to squat over the property. 6. Similarly R.C.O.P.No.24 of 1995 was filed by the land lord, who is the respondent herein {C.R.P.NPD (MD) No.1211 of 2008} seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default and owners' occupation. According to the respondent, the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent for the months of March to July 1992. In addition, the petition mentioned premises was required for one of the sons of the landlord to commence business who is already carrying on the business in Manachanallur in a rental premises. 7. According to the respondent, the tenant had defaulted in payment of rent for the months of March to July 1992. In addition, the petition mentioned premises was required for one of the sons of the landlord to commence business who is already carrying on the business in Manachanallur in a rental premises. 7. It was also contended by the landlord that the tenant had promised to vacate the premises before April 1992, however did not keep up his promise. Hence the petition for eviction was sought for by the landlord. 8. The said petition was resisted by the tenant by filing his counter denying any default by him as he had tendered the rent by sending Money Order. It was only the landlord, who refused to collect the rent. The tenant also denied the bona fide requirement of the premises for the business of his son contending that there were other non-residential building of his own within the Municipal limits of Manachanallur. Hence the requirement of the landlord on the ground of owners occupation cannot be termed bona fide and prayed for dismissal of the eviction petition. 9. Both the Rent Control Original petitions were taken up for joint trial pursuant to the memo filed. The Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli passed a common order on 27/11/1997 dismissing the petition filed by the tenant in R.C.O.P.No.20 of 1995 and ordered eviction in R.C.O.P.No.24 of 1995 by allowing the same. 10. Aggrieved by the decisions of the Rent Controller, the tenant had preferred R.C.A.No.24 of 1998 and R.C.A.No.25 of 1998 which were also dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, confirming the order of eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the above Civil Revisions are filed. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant argued that the authorities below had erred in holding that a tenant had committed willful default in payment of rent despite the fact that an advance amount of Rs.12,000/- was available with the landlord. Further, it was contended that the Courts below had failed to see that there was no bona fide intention in the demand of the landlord asking for the rented premises for own use and occupation. 12. Further, it was contended that the Courts below had failed to see that there was no bona fide intention in the demand of the landlord asking for the rented premises for own use and occupation. 12. Another important contention made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant was that during the Rent Control proceedings, the property was sold to the second respondent herein and therefore, the grounds of willful default and owners occupation are no longer available for the subsequent purchaser. Hence he prayed for the reversal of eviction by the Rent Control authorities. 13. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the following judgments:- (i). S.V.PERIASAMY & SONS BY ITS PARTNER S.V.PERIASAMY NADAR AND 3 OTHERS {1997 (1) L.W – 527}. (ii). ARUMUGA NAICKER (DIED) AND 3 OTHERS Vs. T.G. BALADHANDAYUTHAPANI AND ANOTHER reported in {1998 (1) L.W. - 616}. (iii). N.M.ENGINEER AND OTHERS Vs. NARENDRA SINGH VIRDI AND ANOTHER reported in {AIR 1995 SC – 448} (iv). ALAUDIN AND ONE ANOTHER Vs. A. SATHAR reported in {2011 (5) CTC – 486} 14. In reply to the same, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord contended that the authorities below, who had an occasion to see the demeanor of the parties had appreciated the evidence and contentions of the parties in a proper perspective while passing the eviction order. Further, the willful default and owners occupation are adjudicated only upon the original cause of action as originally pleaded in the O.P and any subsequent events may be ignored. 15. The questions that arise for consideration in these revisions are:- (i). Whether the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control authorities are sustainable and (ii). As the property has been sold pending proceedings whether the cause of action would survive to the subsequent purchaser. 16. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents. 17. A perusal of the records and the material papers available, it can be seen that if the respondent/landlord had wantonly refused to receive the payment for the month of March 1992, then, the tenant should have sent the Money Order in April 1992 itself. But the tenant had not taken any steps in the present case. The tenant also had not taken care to pay the rent till June 1992. But the tenant had not taken any steps in the present case. The tenant also had not taken care to pay the rent till June 1992. So far as the advance money is concerned, unless the tenant gives the specific instruction to the landlord seeking adjustment of the rent due from the advance amount, the failure to pay the monthly rent is amounting to willful default. 18. In the case on hand, it is evident from the materials on record that no such course has been taken by the petitioner/tenant seeking adjustment of the advance amount in the hands of the landlord. No doubt, an obligation is caused upon the tenant to pay the rent regularly on a monthly basis and not waiting for the landlord to demand the payment. The tenant cannot shift the blame on the landlord for not collecting the rent when it is the duty of the tenant to tender the rent as and when it falls due. Having promised to vacate the premises by the end of March, the tenant had continued to squat on the property and also refused to pay the rent which amounts to willful default. Therefore, the petition filed by the tenant under Section 8 (5) of the Act is rightly dismissed by the authorities below. 19. On the question of owner's occupation, the landlord had produced Ex.A.3 which is an application seeking licence for the commencement of the business for his son. It is also admitted that his son is carrying on business in a rental premises in Manachanallur. However, the tenant had not produced any evidence to prove that the landlord owns any other non-residential building of his own in the same locality. Hence the argument that the requirement of demised premises on the ground of owners occupation by the landlord is not bonafide is not accepted. 20. So far as the subsequent event viz., the sale of the property pending proceedings to the second respondent is concerned, this Court as well as the Supreme Court has held that the same can be taken note of and the Court can consider the same. 21. In this regard, the learned counsel for the landlord placed reliance on SAIT NAGJEE PURUSHOTHAM & CO LTD Vs. VIMALABAI PRABHULAL AND OTHERS reported in 2005 (8) SCC – 252. 22. The learned counsel also placed reliance on GAYA PRASAD Vs. 21. In this regard, the learned counsel for the landlord placed reliance on SAIT NAGJEE PURUSHOTHAM & CO LTD Vs. VIMALABAI PRABHULAL AND OTHERS reported in 2005 (8) SCC – 252. 22. The learned counsel also placed reliance on GAYA PRASAD Vs. PRADEEP SRIVASTAVA reported in {2001 (2) SCC – 604}. “We have no doubt that the crucial date for deciding as to the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord is the date of his application for eviction. The antecedent days may perhaps have utility for him to reach the said crucial date of consideration. If every subsequent development during the post petition period is to be taken into account for judging the bona fides of the requirement pleaded by the landlord there would perhaps be no end so long as the unfortunate situation in our litigative slow process system subsists. During 23 years after the landlord moved for eviction on the ground that his son needed the building, neither the landlord nor his son is expected to remain idle without doing any work, lest, joining any new assignment or starting any new work would be at the peril of forfeiting his requirement to occupy the building. It is a stark reality that the longer is the life of the litigation the more would be the number of developments sprouting up during the long interregnum. If a young entrepreneur decides to launch a new enterprise and on that ground he or his father seeks eviction of a tenant from the building, the proposed enterprise would not get faded out by subsequent developments during the traditional lengthy longevity of the litigation. His need may get dusted, patina might stick on its surface, nonetheless the need would remain intact. All that is needed is to erase the patina and see the gloss. It is pernicious, and we may say, unjust to shut the door before an applicant just on the eve of his reaching the finale, after passing through all the previous levels of the litigation, merely on the ground that certain developments occurred pendente lite, because the opposite party succeeded in prolonging the matter for such unduly long period.” 23. In VELLINGIRI Vs. T.S.RAVENDRAN AND 5 OTHERS reported in {2015 (1) MWN (Civl) – 96, wherein in paragraph Nos.6.5 and 6.6, it has been held as follows:- “6.5. In VELLINGIRI Vs. T.S.RAVENDRAN AND 5 OTHERS reported in {2015 (1) MWN (Civl) – 96, wherein in paragraph Nos.6.5 and 6.6, it has been held as follows:- “6.5. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents / landlords, which are rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are binding and it takes precedence over the decisions rendered by the High Court. In one of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the tenant / petitioner, it has been held that the assignee is not entitled to rent before the assignment. It is not a case where the assignee / transferee-landlord is seeking for arrears of rent, neither the transferor landlord too. The only claim is eviction of the tenant on the ground that there is wilful default in the payment of the rent. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the tenant will not help the tenant in establishing his case. 6.6. The decisions, relied on, clearly goes to show that the transferees / landlords are entitled to the benefit of an order of eviction already passed in favour of the transferors / landlords. Therefore, the order of eviction, as concurrently given by the Courts below, would enure for the benefit of the transferors / landlords.” 24. Similarly, the case reported in 2014 (2) L.W – 493 (G.HARIDOSS Vs. HEMANTHARAJ & ANOTHER) rep. it has been categorically held that the pendente lite transferee/landlord is also entitled to have the benefit of order of eviction passed in favour of the transferor landlord even in the case of willful default and owners occupation. 25. The above decisions render the contention of the tenant that in the event of the sale of demised premises pending proceedings would terminate the proceedings is no longer sustainable. 26. In view of the above findings, these Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed, confirming the order dated 3/9/2007 made in R.C.A.Nos.25 and 24 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Trichy, confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 27/11/1997 in R.C.O.P.Nos.24 and 20 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Rent Controller (District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate), Lalkudi. No costs. The tenant is directed to evict the premises within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No costs. The tenant is directed to evict the premises within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.