Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1127 (MAD)

K. Deenadayalan v. Subramanian

2017-04-18

G.JAYACHANDRAN

body2017
ORDER : This revision petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority in the petition filed by the landlord for eviction on the ground of wilful default. 2. The case of the respondents/landlords is that the mother of the revision petitioner namely, Ramuthai was the original tenant under one M. Marimuthu in the petition mentioned property. The said Marimuthu sold the property to one Subramanian on 19.01.1995 through a registered sale deed. Even though the tenant was made known about the transfer of title and demand of rent, there was no response from the tenant to pay the rent to the subsequent purchaser/landlord namely, R. Subramanian. Hence R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1996 was filed for eviction on the ground of wilful default. Meanwhile, the original tenant died and her legal representative was brought on record who is the revision petitioner herein. 3. The landlord Mr. R. Subramanian also died pending revision petition and his legal representatives were brought on record who are the respondents 2 to 4. Both the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority have categorically held that after the death of Ramuthai, original tenant, the revision petitioner has not paid the rent to the landlord and there is a wilful default in payment after 13.10.2000. 4. While so, aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Court below, the present revision petition has been filed by the tenant stating that the default in payment of rent during the pendency of R.C.O.P, cannot be termed as wilful and it is only a procedural delay. After the death of Ramuthai, her legal representative who is the revision petitioner took steps to implied himself and in the interregnum period, there was delay in payment of rent for want of specific direction by the Court. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that even after filing the revision petition the tenant has not come forward to deposit the rent to the respondents herein and as such, for the past 17 years, the tenant is squatting over the property in spite of the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller as early as 17.08.2001 and the same been confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 22.09.2006. 6. 6. On 05.04.2017, when the matter was taken up for final disposal, this Court directed the counsel for the revision petitioner to produce the document regarding payment of rent till 31.03.2017 to pursue further the revision petition. 7. When the matter was taken up today, the counsel for the revision petitioner neither produced the receipt for payment of rent nor ready to conduct the revision petition. It is a the clear case of wilful default not only at the time of filing of the RCOP for eviction, but, even subsequent to that. From the statement made by the counsel for the respondents/landlords, it appears that for the past 17 years, there is no tender of rent or deposit of rent to the landlords by the tenant/revision petitioner who is in occupation of the demised premises. Taking advantage of the pendency of the revision petition, the revision petitioner has been occupying the petition property for nearly 17 years without paying any rent. 8. In the light of the above facts, this Court is of the view that the revision petitioner does not deserve any consideration of this Court to be in occupation of the demised premises without paying rent. 9. Hence this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. The revision petitioner is directed to vacate the premises and hand over the vacant possession forthwith, failing which, it is open to the respondents to resort the legal course available. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.