Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2645 (MAD)

K. Srinivasan v. S. Mohamed Hafi

2017-08-16

T.RAVINDRAN

body2017
ORDER : 1. The civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decreetal orders, dated 14.12.2005, made in R.C.A.No.9 of 2004, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / Sub Court, Uthamapalayam, confirming the fair and decreetal orders, dated 15.12.2003, made in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2001, on the file of the Rent Controller / District Munsif, Uthamapalayam. 2. The respondent / landlord had preferred the rent control original petition against the revision petitioner / tenant on the grounds of wilful default and owner's occupation. 3. The case of the respondent / landlord in brief is as follows: 3.1. The petition schedule property (hereinafter, referred to as “the property”) belonged to the respondent / landlord and the tenant is in the occupation of the property and the monthly rent is Rs.500/- and he is not in the habit of paying the rent regularly and thus, he had committed the wilful default in payment of the rent and from August, 1996 he has deliberately not paid the rent and hence, he is liable to be evicted from the property on the ground of wilful default and further, the property is more than 75 years old and requires immediate demolition and therefore, the property is required for the said purpose so as to enable the landlord to start a new business in the property and hence, the landlord requested the tenant to vacate the property and also issued a notice, dated 03.03.2001, through his lawyer to the tenant with reference to the same and the tenant has sent a reply containing false allegations and hence, the rent control original petition. 4. The case of the revision petitioner / tenant in brief is as follows: 4.1 The landlord has to establish that he is the owner of the property and it is false to state that the monthly rent is Rs.500/-. 4. The case of the revision petitioner / tenant in brief is as follows: 4.1 The landlord has to establish that he is the owner of the property and it is false to state that the monthly rent is Rs.500/-. The monthly rent was originally Rs.100/- and thereafter increased to Rs.200/- and the payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord's agent is reflected in the pocket notebook maintained by the agent and the landlord did not produce the pocket notebook thereafter and hence, the tenant by way of a notice, dated 24.03.2001 called upon the landlord to specify his bank account number so as to enable him to deposit the rent and in respect of the same, no reply has been received from the landlord and the tenant is ready to deposit the rent in the Court. The property is in a good condition and it does not require any immediate demolition and the landlord has set up a false case that the same is required for his new business and hence, the rent control original petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. In support of the case of the landlord, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked and on the side of the tenant R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R6 were marked. 6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, the Rent Controller was pleased to hold that the tenant has committed wilful default as put forth by the landlord and ordered eviction on that ground, however did not entertain the petition seeking for eviction on the ground of owner's occupation. 7. The appeal preferred by the tenant ended in failure and the Rent Control Appellate Authority has also concurred with the fair and decreetal orders of the Rent Controller. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 8. The following points arise for consideration: I. Whether the petitioner / tenant is liable to be evicted from the property on the ground of wilful default as put forth by the respondent / landlord in the rent control original petition? and ii. To what relief the appellant / tenant is entitled to? POINT NO.I: 9. 8. The following points arise for consideration: I. Whether the petitioner / tenant is liable to be evicted from the property on the ground of wilful default as put forth by the respondent / landlord in the rent control original petition? and ii. To what relief the appellant / tenant is entitled to? POINT NO.I: 9. The evidence adduced in the matter would go to show that the property belonged to K.K.M & M.K.M. Concern and it is also found that the owners had executed a power deed in favour of the landlord's father and another marked as Ex.P1 in respect of the property and thereby, the landlord's father and thereafter the landlord had been collecting the rent from the tenant. In this connection, the power deed marked as Ex.P7 is also pressed into service on behalf of the landlord, which had been executed in his favour and another by the owners of the property. That apart, it is found that the tenant has admitted the payment of the rent for the property though stating to be Rs.200/- to the landlord's agent and also called upon the landlord to specify his bank account number so as to enable him to deposit the rent in respect of the property. However, the fact remains that the tenant has not clearly spelt out as to whether he had paid the rent from August 1996 onwards in respect of the property. It is found that inasmuch as the tenant had committed default in the payment of rent from August 1996 onwards and thereupon the landlord had also demanded the tenant to vacate the property, it is found that only thereafter, the tenant had chosen to send the notice calling upon the landlord to specify his bank account number so as to deposit the rent in respect of the property. It is, therefore, found that the tenant as such has not paid the rent from August, 1996 onwards as put forth by the landlord. 10. Thereafter, it is found that at one stage of the matter in a petition filed by the landlord, under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter, referred to as “the Act), an order has been passed directing the tenant to pay the admitted rent at the rate of Rs.200/- and accordingly, it is found that the tenant had been paying the rent. However, as rightly determined by Courts below, the above facts alone would not relieve the tenant from the rigour of wilful default committed by him in the payment of rent to the landlord as and when the same is due in respect of the property. 11. In sofar as this civil revision petition is concerned, the main argument put forth by the learned counsel for the tenant is that the landlord has not established that he is the landlord in respect of the property and entitled to maintain the petition for eviction and hence, on that sole ground alone the rent control original petition is liable to be dismissed. However, as rightly determined by the Courts below, the tenant himself having admitted that he had been paying the rent to the landlord's agent and also called upon the landlord to specify the bank account number so as to enable him to deposit the rent and further, when it is also seen that the landlord as such is entitled to receive the rent on behalf of the owners of the property as per the power deeds executed and marked in this case and also as held by the Courts below considering the definition of the “Landlord” as outlined in Section 2(6) of the Act, it is found that the rent control original petitioner / landlord also falls within the definition of the “Landlord” and hence, he is entitled to maintain the rent control original petition against the tenant. In such view of the matter, as rightly put forth by the learned counsel for the landlord, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the tenant reported in (2010) 4 MLJ 118 [Saral Saroja vs. Simson] is not applicable to the case at hand. 12. As seen above, the tenant cannot be relieved from the severity of the wilful default committed by him in the payment of rent from August, 1996 merely on the basis that he has been permitted to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.200/- in the light of the order passed in the interlocutory application preferred by the landlord under Section 11(4) of the Act. Therefore, it is found that the tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent, even the quantum of rent as admitted by him to the landlord in respect of the property and even after the notice sent by the landlord, he has not cared to pay the rent in time and therefore, as rightly determined by the Courts below, the tenant has committed wilful default in the payment of rent as put forth by the landlord and hence, he is liable to be evicted from the property. As regards the above findings of the Courts below, it is seen that the Courts below have rightly assessed the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties in the right perspective both factually as well as legally and the same do not warrant any interference from this Court. 13. In view of the foregoing reasons, I hold that the petitioner / tenant is liable to be evicted from the property on the ground of wilful default as put forth by the respondent / landlord in the rent control original petition. Accordingly, Point No.I is answered in favour of the landlord. POINT NO.II: 14. In conclusion, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 14.12.2005, made in R.C.A.No.9 of 2004, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / Sub Court, Uthamapalayam, confirming the fair and decreetal orders, dated 15.12.2003, made in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2001, on the file of the Rent Controller / District Munsif, Uthamapalayam, are confirmed. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.