Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1790 (MAD)

A. Hari Kumar v. P. Rajendra Kumar

2015-04-01

K.KALYANASUNDARAM

body2015
JUDGMENT : K. Kalyanasundaram, J. 1. This Revision arises out of the Order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Small Causes Court), Chennai, in RCA No. 527 of 2010, dated 18.12.2014, confirming the Order of the learned Rent Controller (X Small Causes Court), Chennai, passed in RCOP No. 313 of 2008, dated 27.7.2010. The Respondents/Landlords initiated Eviction proceedings against the Petitioner/Tenant under Sections 10(2)(i) & 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act contending that the Tenant has neglected and failed to pay the monthly Rents from October 2006 to December 2007 and the building requires for their own use and occupation. 2. The Landlords averred in the Petition that the Tenant was inducted by their vendor M.S. Janaki in the month of February 1988 and the Rent was periodically increased and the present Rent is Rs. 3,500 per month. The Landlords purchased the property by a registered Sale Deed, dated 29.9.2006 and the same was properly informed to the Tenant. Despite the same, the Tenant failed to pay Rents, which necessitated the Landlords to send a Letter, dated 9.7.2007 enclosing a copy of the Sale Deed and also informing that they required the Tenanted premises for their own use and occupation. It is further averred that the Landlords issued a Notice through an Advocate and the same was received by the Tenant on 31.10.2007. 3. The Tenant resisted the Application contending that the original Landlord had initiated Eviction proceedings against the Tenant in RCOP No. 1479 of 2000 on the ground of willful default and own use and occupation and without disclosing the same, the Tenanted premises was sold to the present Landlords and the original Landowner was receiving monthly Rent of Rs. 2,205 per month and the Tenant has paid the arrears of Rent from August 2007 to February 2008, totally Rs. 15,435 on the first hearing date of the Eviction Petition and therefore, there is no willful default. The Tenant has further stated that the requirement of the Landlords is not bona fide, but the eviction proceedings initiated with a mala-fide intention. 4. Before the Rent Controller, the Landlord has examined himself as PW 1 and marked Exs. P1 to P6. On behalf of the Tenant, his wife and his mother-in-law were examined as PW 1 & PW 2 and Exs. R1 to R7 were marked. 5. 4. Before the Rent Controller, the Landlord has examined himself as PW 1 and marked Exs. P1 to P6. On behalf of the Tenant, his wife and his mother-in-law were examined as PW 1 & PW 2 and Exs. R1 to R7 were marked. 5. The Rent Controller found that the Tenant has committed willful default in paying the monthly Rents and also the requirement of the Landlords is bona fide and allowed the Eviction Petition. The Order of the Rent Controller was confirmed by the Appellate Authority in RCA No. 527 of 2010. 6. Heard Mr. A. Muthukumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M. Theiva Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondents and perused the records. 7. It is not in dispute that the Landlords had purchased the Tenanted premises through a registered Sale Deed, dated 29.9.2006 and the same was intimated to the Respondent through a Letter, dated 9.7.2007 under Ex. P2. It is the case of the Landlords that in Ex. P2, they have intimated about the purchase of the property on 29.9.2006 for their own use and occupation and the Tenant has to pay the Rent at the rate of Rs. 3,500 per month from October 2006. Since, the Tenant has not responded to the Letter issued under Ex. P2, he sent a Legal Notice on 27.10.2007 through an Advocate under Ex. P4. 8. The case of the Tenant is that the original owner M.S. Janaki had initiated Eviction proceedings against the Tenant in RCOP No. 1479 of 2000, pending disposal of the Eviction Petition and without proper intimation, the property was sold to the Landlords and therefore, the Tenant was paying Rent at the rate of Rs. 2,205 per month to the original Landowner till July 2007 and the Tenant had also paid Rs. 15,435 being the arrears of Rent from August 2007 to February 2008 on the first hearing date of the Eviction Petition. 9. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have found material contradictions in the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2. Further, the Authorities have found that the Tenant has not replied to the Letter issued under Ex. P2 and there is no proof for payment of Rents to the original Owner for the period between October 2006 to July 2007 and the Tenant had paid Rs. Further, the Authorities have found that the Tenant has not replied to the Letter issued under Ex. P2 and there is no proof for payment of Rents to the original Owner for the period between October 2006 to July 2007 and the Tenant had paid Rs. 15,435 being the arrears of Rent from August 2007 to February 2008 in the first hearing date of the Eviction Petition, held that the default committed by the Tenant should be construed as 'wilful default'. 10. It is seen that the Tenant has filed MP No. 578 of 2014 in RCA No. 527 of 2010 seeking permission of the Court to file additional documents. In the Affidavit filed in support of the Petition, it is stated that the Tenant had paid Rs. 15,435 on 13.3.2008 towards arrears of Rent from August 2007 to February 2008 and that the Tenant had deposited Rs. 48,510 towards arrears of Rent for the months of October 2008 to July 2010, vide Receipt No. 161029, which would show that the Tenant was not paying the Rents regularly, even after the initiation of the Eviction proceedings. 11. It is settled law that default in payment of Rent during the pendency of the Eviction proceedings can be taken into consideration and the non-payment of Rent would amount to willful default. 12. In Exs. P2 & P3, the Landlords have specifically stated that the Tenanted premises was purchased for their own use and occupation and they do not have any other house on their own in the city. PW 1 has also categorically deposed to that effect before the Trial Court. 13. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority relying upon the evidence of Exs. P2 & P3 and the evidence of PW 1 held that the requirement sought by the Landlords is a bona fide one. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority, on proper appreciation of evidence, held that the Tenant has committed willful default and the requirement of the Landlords is bona fide. Further, the Tenant has not established that the finding of facts recorded by the Authorities are perverse and it was decided in an arbitrary manner. In view of the above facts, I do not find any ground to upset the finding of facts recorded by the Authorities. In the result, the Revision fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Further, the Tenant has not established that the finding of facts recorded by the Authorities are perverse and it was decided in an arbitrary manner. In view of the above facts, I do not find any ground to upset the finding of facts recorded by the Authorities. In the result, the Revision fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tenant shall vacate and hand over possession to the Landlords on or before 30.9.2015 and till such time, the Tenant shall also continue to pay the Rent regularly. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Petition Dismissed.