Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1572 (MAD)

A. Noorjahan v. Venkatachalam

2015-03-23

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

body2015
Judgment :- 1. The tenant is the petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.67 of 2007 which was filed under Section 8 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 2. The landlord is the petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2008 which is filed under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the ground of willful default. 3. Both the petitions were tried in common and R.C.O.P.No.67 of 2007 was dismissed and R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2008 was allowed. Aggrieved, the tenant preferred R.C.A.No.17 of 2012 and the landlord had preferred R.C.A.No.28 of 2012 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirunelveli which was also met with the same fate. Hence the above revisions are filed by the tenant challenging the orders passed in RCAs. 4. The necessary facts for deciding the issues are as follows:- The respondent is the owner of the demised premises and the petitioner is the tenant and there was no advance amount given at the time of lease to the landlord and the premises was leased out to the revision petitioners herein are all admitted facts by both the parties. 5. The rent payable is Rs.575/- per day and the period of default is between 10/7/2007 and 2/12/2007. As the tenant defaulted in payment of rent, R.C.O.P was filed by the landlord. However, the petitioner herein, who is the tenant contended that the rent payable was only Rs.75/- per day and it is not Rs.575/- as claimed by the landlord and there was no arrears. It was the landlord, who refused to receive the rent. Hence the tenant was compelled to file R.C.O.P.No.67 of 2007 under Section 8 (5) of the Act. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent. 7. From the above facts, the issue common to both the revisions is whether the tenant had committed any willful default. 8. According to the landlord,the previous tenant John Xavier was paying the rent of Rs.500/- per day and when he vacated, the present tenant agreed to pay Rs.75/- per day in addition to Rs.500/-, i.e., Rs.575/- and took the property on lease. The revision petitioner/tenant was paying Rs.575/- per day till 9/7/2007 and thereafter, defaulted in payment of the rent. 8. According to the landlord,the previous tenant John Xavier was paying the rent of Rs.500/- per day and when he vacated, the present tenant agreed to pay Rs.75/- per day in addition to Rs.500/-, i.e., Rs.575/- and took the property on lease. The revision petitioner/tenant was paying Rs.575/- per day till 9/7/2007 and thereafter, defaulted in payment of the rent. When the landlord demanded eviction of the demised premises, the tenant preferred O.S.No.501 of 2007 for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the landlord from evicting the tenant unless by due process of law. 9. In the above said suit, the tenant had altered the rent receipt from Rs.575/- to Rs.75/-. The tenant also contended that the daily rent was only Rs.75/- and he has been depositing the rent upto date. The rent pass book was marked as Ex.P.2 in which the tenant had altered the numbers. Therefore, in the suit, the said rent passbook was sent for an expert opinion and the report of the expert was also filed as Ex.P.1. The report of the expert was also that the tenant had corrected the number as 575/- into 75/-. The Civil Court also had found that the report of the expert was corrected and the rent passbook was materially altered by the tenant. 10. Though the tenant had claimed that he had been depositing the daily rent on a monthly basis before the Court, a perusal of the records would show that the tenant had deposited the rent only on 13/1/2010, a sum of Rs.2,325/- and thereafter, had not remitted any rent. Even after the filing of the O.P also, the tenant had not been paying the daily rent which he is liable to pay. 11. As he had altered the rent passbook, it is evident that the tenant had deliberately not paid the rent. Having failed to pay the rent as agreed only to get over the liability, the tenant had filed R.C.O.P.No.67 of 2007 to deposit the rent into Court. Even before the Court, the tenant had not deposited the rent. Hence R.C.O.P.No.67 of 2007 was also dismissed. 12. Admittedly, the tenant had not paid the agreed rent of Rs.575/-. The dispute regarding the rent payable per day was also resolved by the authorities below that it is only Rs.575/- per day and not Rs.75/- as claimed by the tenant. Even before the Court, the tenant had not deposited the rent. Hence R.C.O.P.No.67 of 2007 was also dismissed. 12. Admittedly, the tenant had not paid the agreed rent of Rs.575/-. The dispute regarding the rent payable per day was also resolved by the authorities below that it is only Rs.575/- per day and not Rs.75/- as claimed by the tenant. The said point was also established by the landlord by producing the report of the expert from which the intention of the tenant was evident. 13. In view of the above findings, the authorities below have rightly held that the tenant had willfully defaulted the payment of rent by denying the quantum of rent and ordered eviction from the petition mentioned premises. As the quantum of rent was in doubt, the petitioner also failed to deposit the rent in the R.C.O.P filed by him. 14. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed, confirming the orders passed in R.C.A.Nos.17 and 28 of 2012 by the Principal Sub-Judge, Tirunelveli, confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 8/11/2011 passed in R.C.O.P.Nos.1 of 2008 and 67 of 2007 by the Honourable Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Tirunelveli. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.