Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 325 (MAD)

C. Paneerselvam v. S. K. Subbiah

2020-02-14

V.BHARATHIDASAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 06.11.2019 made in R.C.A.No.64 of 2018, passed by the learned IX Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai by confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 04.01.2018, made in R.C.O.P.No.1932 of 2015 passed by the learned XIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.) 1. Revision has been filed against the order of eviction. The petitioner is the tenant. The respondent landlord has filed a petition for eviction under Section 10(2)(i), of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the ground of willful default in payment of rent from November, 2014 to December, 2015. The Rent Controller allowed the petition and ordered eviction, which has been confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. Challenging the same the present revision. The parties are hereinafter referred to as per their jural relationship. 2. According to the landlord, he is the absolute owner of the premises at Door No.7/9, Dr.Alagappa Road, Chennai and in a small portion on the left side front portion of the premises, the tenant is running a waste paper mart on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- and he committed willful default in paying the rent from November, 2014 till December, 2015. In the above circumstance, he has filed the present petition for eviction. 3. The tenant contested the petition on the ground that, a small vacant portion was originally leased out by the erstwhile landlord Mrs. Kutty Ammal in the year 1988 to his father and he has constructed a superstructure on his own measuring an extent of 100 sq.ft. and he continue to pay the ground rent to the erstwhile landlord. After his father’s death in the year 2007, he was running the business and paying the rent regularly. 4. The landlord stated to have purchased the property in the year 2011 and never informed about the same to the tenant likewise the erstwhile landlord also failed to inform about the sale in favour of the landlord to the tenant. Thereafter, when the landlord tried to evict the tenant, he has filed a suit in O.S.No.1584 of 2015, in which, the landlord filed a written statement stating that he has purchased the property, then only he came to know about the sale. Thereafter, when the landlord tried to evict the tenant, he has filed a suit in O.S.No.1584 of 2015, in which, the landlord filed a written statement stating that he has purchased the property, then only he came to know about the sale. Thereafter, he started depositing the rent in the landlord’s bank account directly. So far as the period between November, 2014 and December, 2015 is concerned, he had paid the entire rent to the erstwhile landlord. According to him, there is no attornment of tenency in favour of the landlord. He also denied any willful default in payment of rent. 5. The trial Court after considering the pleadings and evidence has allowed the petition and ordered eviction. An Appeal filed by the tenant against the said order was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Authority and confirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller. Against the said concurrent order of eviction, present revision has been filed. 6. Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned senior counsel appearing for the tenant would contend that, the portion leased out to the tenant is only a vacant site and the tenant’s father alone put up a superstructure thereon, and all along he paid the ground rent to the erstwhile landlord. That apart, for the alleged default period, he has paid the rent to the erstwhile landlord Ms.Dhanakoti D/o late Mrs.Kutty Ammal, and the rent receipts were also filed before the trial Court in Ex.R1. That apart, the tenant has been in possession of the property since 1988 and paying ground rent to the erstwhile landlord, and the present landlord has purchased the property only in the year 2011, the above purchase was not duly informed to the tenant neither by the erstwhile landlord nor by the present landlord and he has no knowledge about the purchase, therefore, he has been continuously paying the rent to the erstwhile landlord. Only in the year 2015, when a suit was filed by him, he came to know about the purchase of the property by the landlord, thereafter, he started depositing the rent regularly to the landlord’s bank account and there is no default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlord. A perusal of the sale deed in favour of the landlord also clearly shows that the landlord has only purchased the house and he has not purchased the demised premises. A perusal of the sale deed in favour of the landlord also clearly shows that the landlord has only purchased the house and he has not purchased the demised premises. Both the Authorities below without considering the above said fact erroneously ordered eviction. 7. Per contra, Mr.S.Thiruvengadam, learned counsel appearing for the landlord/caveat or would contend that the tenant was fully aware of the purchase by the landlord, despite the same, he failed to pay the rent to the landlord. Even the alleged rent said to have been paid to the erstwhile landlord, it is established that the entire receipts have been issued by the erstwhile landlord on the same day and the erstwhile landlord has not been examined to prove the same. Even as per the rent receipt produced by the tenant, he has paid the rent only in respect of the building and not the ground rent as alleged by the tenant. Considering the above circumstance, both the Court’s below have concurrently ordered eviction and there is no reason to interfere with the same. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the records carefully. 9. Eviction petition has been filed on the ground that willful default in payment of rent from November, 2014 to December, 2015. Admittedly, the landlord purchased the property in the year 2011. The tenant was in occupation of the demised portion even before the purchase by the landlord. Now, it is contended by the tenant that, he was not aware of the purchase and he continuously paying rent to the erstwhile landlord, after coming to know about the purchase by the landlord in the year 2015, he is paying the rent to the landlord. In order to prove that he has paid the rent for the defaulted period to the erstwhile landlord, he has marked the rent receipts as Ex.R1, it is admitted by the tenant that the receipts were issued by the erstwhile landlord on the same day, and that the receipts also have no numbers. Apart from that, he has failed to examine Ms.Dhanakoti, the erstwhile landlord, who is said to have received the rent, to prove the same. It is settled law that mere filing of documents is no proof and the tenant ought to have taken steps to examine the erstwhile landlord who issued the receipt to prove the same. 10. Apart from that, he has failed to examine Ms.Dhanakoti, the erstwhile landlord, who is said to have received the rent, to prove the same. It is settled law that mere filing of documents is no proof and the tenant ought to have taken steps to examine the erstwhile landlord who issued the receipt to prove the same. 10. The next contention of the tenant that, only a vacant site has been leased out to the tenant’s father and he only put up the superstructure and they are only paying the ground rent to the landlord. To establish the same, absolutely, there is no material available to prove that the tenant has only constructed the superstructure. That apart, even a perusal of the rent receipts filed by the tenant under Ex.R1, it only says house rent and it is not ground rent as alleged by the tenant. So far as purchase of the demised premises by the landlord, the sale deed has been marked as Ex.P1, the total extent purchased by the landlord is 5682 sq.ft, wherein the tenant has been running a small shop measuring an extent of 100 sq.ft in one corner of the above premises. There is no pleading that the landlord did not purchase the demised premises and absolutely, there is no evidence on this score. At this stage, it is not now open to the tenant to contend that the landlord has not purchased the demised premises. Both the authorities below, considering the entire evidence in proper perspective ordered eviction. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Courts below and there is no merit in the revision. 11. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is directed to vacate and hand over the premises to the landlord within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.