Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2076 (MAD)

T. R. Pandarinathan v. G. Pattabi

2017-07-17

T.RAVINDRAN

body2017
ORDER : 1. Challenge in this civil revision petition is made to the fair and decreetal orders of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Karur in R.C.A.No.11 of 2005, dated 15.09.2005, confirming the fair and decreetal orders, dated 17.02.2005, passed in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2004, by the Rent Controller, Karur. 2. In brief, according to the respondent/landlord, the petition schedule property (hereinafter, referred to as ?the property?) belonged to him, by virtue of the Sale Deed, dated 26.06.1995 and he had instructed his mother to collect the rent from the revision petitioner/tenant fixed at a sum of Rs.750/- per month and according to the landlord, the tenant was irregular in payment of the rent and that apart, he had been sending the rent by way of money order deducting the commission, which he is not entitled to do so and further, the tenant, after the demise of the landlord's mother on 09.01.1998, did not send the rent as agreed to between the parties and in such circumstances, the tenant had sent a notice to the landlord and also filed R.C.O.P.No.4 of 1998 seeking permission to deposit the rent in the Court and the landlord sent a suitable reply, on 11.03.1998, to the notice sent by the tenant and despite the same, the tenant continued to commit default in the payment of rent, which is nothing but wilful and the tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent from 01.01.1998 onwards and after due enquiry, R.C.O.P.No.4 of 1998 preferred by the tenant was dismissed and the appeal preferred by him, in R.C.A.No.3 of 2003, also came to be dismissed. Hence, inasmuch as the tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent, he is liable to be evicted on that ground. 3. Hence, inasmuch as the tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent, he is liable to be evicted on that ground. 3. The property is situated in the commercial area in the heart of the business place at Karur and the adjacent buildings are all newly constructed with modern facilities and the building constructed in the petition schedule property alone is the old building in the locality and more than hundred years old and not suitable to the present day living conditions and as it has become dilapidated and if the said superstructure is demolished and new construction is put up thereon with modern facilities, according to the landlord, the same would fetch more income and therefore, the landlord has sought for the eviction of the tenant from the property on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. 4. The tenant, according to the landlord, has disputed his title and thereby without any good intention and mala fidely preferred R.C.O.P.No.4 of 1998 and ultimately, the said rent control original petition also came to be dismissed and therefore, as the tenant had denied the title of the landlord, on that ground also, the tenant is liable to be evicted. Hence, according to the landlord, the rent control original petition. 5. The case of the tenant, in brief, is that the Sale Deed, dated 26.06.1995 obtained by the landlord in respect of the purchase of the petition schedule property is not admitted and the tenant had been regularly paying the rent without any default to Vasavammal, who is the original owner of the property, till her demise on 09.01.1998 and inasmuch as the landlord had not informed about the purchase of the property by him duly and accordingly, the tenant had sent a notice to the landlord and though reply had been sent by the landlord to the same, he having not furnished any copy of the documents for claiming title to the property, according to the tenant, he had preferred R.C.O.P.No.4 of 1998 seeking permission to deposit the rent in the Court and also had been depositing the rent in the Court and therefore, there is no default much less wilful default in the payment of rent as pleaded by the landlord. It is false to state that the tenant is liable to be evicted from the property on the ground of wilful default. It is false to state that the tenant is liable to be evicted from the property on the ground of wilful default. The case of the landlord that the property is situated in the commercial area is not admitted and that the adjacent buildings are all newly constructed with modern facilities is also not admitted. It is false to state that the property is more than hundred years old and if the same is demolished and reconstructed, it would fetch more income and as such the landlord is entitled to eviction of the tenant on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The building is not in a dilapidated condition so as to require any immediate demolition and reconstruction. Therefore, the plea of demolition and reconstruction projected by the landlord for eviction of the tenant is untenable and not sustainable. It is false to state that the tenant had disputed the title of the landlord without bona fide. Hence, the rent control original petition laid by the landlord is liable to be dismissed. 6. In support of the petitioner's case, P.W.1 has been examined and Exs.P1 to P7 have been marked and on the side of the respondent, R.W.1 has been examined and Exs.R1 to R4 have been marked. 7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the Rent Controller was pleased to accept the case of the landlord in toto and accordingly, ordered eviction of the tenant and allowed the rent control original petition preferred by the landlord. Challenging the same, the tenant preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority, on a consideration of the merits of the contentions put forth by the respective parties, was pleased to dismiss the appeal thereby confirmed the order of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred by the tenant. 8. It is the specific case of the landlord that he is the owner of the property having purchased the same by way of the Sale Deed, dated 26.06.1995. Asfar as the fact that the petitioner is the tenant in respect of the property, the same is not in issue. 8. It is the specific case of the landlord that he is the owner of the property having purchased the same by way of the Sale Deed, dated 26.06.1995. Asfar as the fact that the petitioner is the tenant in respect of the property, the same is not in issue. According to the landlord, the tenant had been very irregular in payment of the rent fixed at Rs.750/- per month and further, the tenant had also been sending the rent by way of money order deducting the commission irregularly and after the demise of his mother on 09.01.1998, the tenant had stopped the payment of rent and thus, according to the landlord, the tenant had committed wilful default in the payment of rent from 01.01.1998 onwards and thereby, he is liable to be evicted from the property. 9. On the other hand, it is found that the tenant has taken out a plea that the landlord had not duly informed about his purchase of the property and thereby, the tenant had been necessitated to prefer R.C.O.P.No.4 of 1998 for depositing the rent in the Court and accordingly, he had been depositing the rent in Court, therefore, there is no question of default, much less wilful default on his part in the payment of rent and therefore, according to the tenant, the landlord is not entitled to maintain the rent control original petition on the footing that the tenant had committed wilful default in the payment of rent. 10. It is found that there has been an exchange of notices between the parties, which had been marked as Exs.P1 and P2 and it is further found that under Ex.P2, the landlord had informed the tenant about the factum of the purchase of the property by way of Sale Deed, dated 26.06.1995. If still the tenant had any misgivings about the claim of title over the property by the landlord, as rightly contended by the landlord and also found by the Lower Courts, the tenant should have been called upon the landlord to furnish more particulars as regards the claim of the title to the property and thereby he should have endeavoured to take further course of action in that regard. On the other hand, though the landlord had informed the tenant about his purchase of the property, still the tenant had moved the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.4 of 1998 seeking permission to deposit the rent in Court on the ground that the landlord has not established to be having title to the property. It is found that the above rent control original petition came to be dismissed by the Rent Controller on 11.10.2002. It is, therefore, found by the Rent Controller that inasmuch as the tenant is not entitled to seek permission to deposit the rent despite having knowledge about the purchase of the property by the landlord, it is found that the Rent Controller has dismissed the rent control original petition preferred by the tenant seeking permission to deposit the rent in Court. The fair and decreetal orders passed in the said rent control original petition have been marked as Exs.P3 and P4. Challenging the said fair and decreetal orders, it is found that the tenant had preferred R.C.A.No.3 of 2002 and the same also got dismissed, which could be seen from the fair and decreetal orders marked as Exs.P5 and P6. Therefore, the claim of the tenant that inasmuch as he is unaware of the purchase of the property by the landlord he had been necessitated to move the Rent Controller for depositing the rent in the Court has been found to be false and accordingly, the petition preferred by the tenant with reference to the same has come to be dismissed. It is thus found by the Courts below that when the case of the tenant that he had sought for permission of the Court to deposit the rent in the Court had been found to be not moved in a bona fide manner, even assuming the fact that the tenant had deposited the rent in the Court, it could not be held as due payment of rent to the landlord. Therefore, it is found that the default in the payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord is wilful. It is the specific case of the landlord that the tenant had not paid the rent from 01.01.1998 onwards. Therefore, it is found that the default in the payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord is wilful. It is the specific case of the landlord that the tenant had not paid the rent from 01.01.1998 onwards. Therefore, the Courts below, taking into consideration the various authorities placed before them, have rightly come to the conclusion that the tenant without any good intention and mala fidely had moved the Rent Controller seeking permission to deposit the rent in the Court and in such circumstances held that the tenant had committed wilful default in the payment of rent as put forth by the landlord. The above findings of the Courts below are found to be based upon the proper appreciation of the materials placed before them and therefore, the same are not liable to be interfered with by the Court. 11. As regards the case of the landlord that the property is an old building and situated in the commercial area and if the building is demolished and new construction is put up thereon, the same would fetch more income and therefore, the building should be demolished and reconstructed and on that ground, the tenant is liable to be evicted, the above case of the landlord is disputed by the tenant. However, on a perusal of the evidence, it is found and also admitted that the superstructure is more than 35 years old and it is also not in dispute that the property is situated in the commercial area, therefore it is found that when according to the landlord he could augment his income by putting up new construction thereon after demolishing the existing superstructure, the landlord as such is found to be entitled to resort the said course and on that ground seeks for eviction of the tenant. On the plea of demolition and reconstruction, as rightly found by the Courts below, it is not necessary on the part of the landlord to establish that he has sufficient funds to demolish and reconstruct the existing building and as rightly found by the Courts below, the landlord is entitled to seek for eviction of the tenant on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, if he has established that the building is an old one and if the same is demolished and reconstructed, it would fetch more income to him and therefore, the Courts below have rightly held that the landlord is entitled to seek for eviction of the tenant on the ground of demolition and reconstruction also. The above findings of the Courts below do not call for any interference. 12. The landlord has also put up a case that the tenant, without good intention and mala fidely disputed his title over the property. As seen from the above discussions, it is found that despite having knowledge about the purchase of the property by the landlord by way of Ex.P2, the tenant still not accepting the case of the landlord and also not paying the rent to him had moved the Rent Controller seeking permission to deposit the rent in the Court. However, his endeavour had come to be rejected by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority on the footing that the permission sought for by the tenant is not a bona fide one, therefore, it is found that considering the facts and circumstances of the case in toto, the Courts below held that the denial of title of the landlord by the tenant is nothing but mala fide and done willfully so as to avoid the payment of rent to the landlord and also to squat on the premises endlessly. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly found that the denial of title of the landlord in respect of the property by the tenant is not bona fide and on that ground also the tenant is liable to be evicted. The above findings of the Courts below are also found to be based on the sound reasoning and conclusion and therefore, the same do not warrant any interference from this Court. 13. The above findings of the Courts below are also found to be based on the sound reasoning and conclusion and therefore, the same do not warrant any interference from this Court. 13. In the light of the above discussions, it is found that the Courts below have, on an appreciation of the evidence placed before them, rightly found that the tenant is liable to be evicted on the grounds put forth by the landlord and in view of the above, it is found that the civil revision petition does not merit acceptance. 14. In the result, the fair and decreetal order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Karur, in R.C.A.No.11 2005, dated 15.09.2005 confirming the order in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2004, dated 17.02.2005, on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif Court), Karur, are confirmed and consequently, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.