Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1945 (MAD)

S. Saroja v. M. C. T. A. Rajan

2015-04-20

K.K.SASIDHARAN

body2015
Judgment 1. The civil revision petition is directed against the Judgment, dated 13th April, 2005, in R.C.A.No.54 of 2001, on the file of learned II Additional Subordinate Judge/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirunelveli, confirming the order, dated 13th November, 2001, in R.C.O.P.No.129 of 1999, on the file of learned Principal District Munsif/Principal Rent Controller, Tirunelveli. 2. The first respondent filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.129 of 1999, before the learned Rent Controller, Tirunelveli, against the petitioner and the second respondent for eviction alleging wilful default and sub-lease. 3. Before the Trial Court, the first respondent contended that he purchased the building from the petitioner, by sale deed, dated 29th September, 1998. According to the first respondent, the petitioner executed a lease agreement, dated 29 September, 1998, agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month as rent. It is the case of the first respondent that the petitioner failed to pay the rent arrears from October, 1998 to September, 1999, at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month. The first respondent further contended that the petitioner sub-leased the shop in question to the second respondent and as such she is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default and sub-lease. 4. The petitioner failed to appear before the Trial Court and as such she was set ex parte. The learned Trial Judge arrived at a finding that the petitioner committed wilful default. The other ground relating to sub-lease was answered against the first respondent. The order passed by the learned Rent Controller was challenged by the petitioner in R.C.A.No.54 of 2001 and the first respondent in R.C.A.No.3 of 2002, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirunelveli. The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals and confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller and the related Judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the unsuccessful first respondent in R.C.O.P.No.129 of 1999 is before this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent. None appeared on behalf of the second respondent. 6. The first respondent filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.129 of 1999, before the Principal Rent Controller, Tirunelveli, against the petitioner and second respondent for eviction alleging wilful default and sub-lease. The petitioner failed to appear before the Trial Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the first respondent. None appeared on behalf of the second respondent. 6. The first respondent filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.129 of 1999, before the Principal Rent Controller, Tirunelveli, against the petitioner and second respondent for eviction alleging wilful default and sub-lease. The petitioner failed to appear before the Trial Court. The Trial Court, taking into account the averments in the petition made by the first respondent in R.C.O.P.No.129 of 1999, allowed the petition. The failure on the part of the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court alone appears to be the reason for arriving at a finding that there was a lease and that the petitioner failed to pay the rent arrears. The order passed by the learned Rent Controller does not contain any material with regard to the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, advance paid by the petitioner and similar other matters. The first respondent failed to produce the lease agreement before the Trial Court. Similarly, he has not produced even the notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the rent arrears. The question of wilful default would arise only in case the landlord called upon the tenant to pay the rent arrears and in spite of such notice, payment was not made. The learned Trial Judge accepted the case of the first respondent as gospel truth and ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default. There was no material other than the rent control original petition to arrive at a finding that the petitioner committed wilful default. Merely because the petitioner was absent, the learned Rent Controller would not get jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction without considering the merits of the matter. The Court should peruse the lease agreement, under which the tenant was put in possession. The Court should be satisfied that the petitioner has kept the rent in arrears before arriving at a conclusion with regard to wilful default. The pleadings alone are not sufficient. The pleadings should be supported by evidence. In this case, neither the lease agreement nor the notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the rent arrears were produced. Such being the factual position, the learned Rent Controller was not correct in arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner kept the rent in arrears. 7. A similar error was committed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority also. In this case, neither the lease agreement nor the notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the rent arrears were produced. Such being the factual position, the learned Rent Controller was not correct in arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner kept the rent in arrears. 7. A similar error was committed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority also. The appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings. The Appellate Authority should have considered the matter in it's proper perspective. The Appellate Authority simply confirmed the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioner must succeed. 8. In the result, the Judgment, dated 13 April, 2005, in R.C.A.No.54 of 2001, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirunelveli, confirming the order, dated 13 November, 2001, in R.C.O.P.No.129 of 1999, on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Tirunelveli, is set aside. The eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No.129 of 1999 is dismissed. 9. In the upshot, I allow the civil revision petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.