Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2486 (MAD)

M. Balan v. Mahendra Kumar

2023-07-20

T.V.THAMILSELVI

body2023
JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside judgment and decree dated 01.12.2022 passed in RLTA No. 80 of 2022 by the learned VI Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai(Rent Tribunal) confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the leaned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, (Rent Control) in RLTOP No. 165 of 2021.) 1. This petition has been filed to set aside judgment and decree dated 01.12.2022 passed in RLTA No. 80 of 2022 by the learned VI Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai(Rent Tribunal) confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 21.04.2022 passed by the leaned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, (Rent Control) in RLTOP No. 165 of 2021. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he had entered into rental agreement with respondent father on 01.12.1999 for the first shop for a monthly rent of Rs.1,750/- and respondent father received an advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner. Subsequently, adjacent shop was let out to the petitioner in the year 2004 for monthly rent by the respondent father for which no advance was paid. Accordingly, as on date, rent for the first shop was Rs. 11,700/- and rent for the second shop was Rs. 7,789/-. Since there were two separate tenancies, the first shop was let out for Rs. 11,700/- in the year 1999 and the second shop let out for Rs.7,789/- in the year 2004. Further, the rent were separately paid by the appellants/petitioners. Therefore the respondent ought to have filed two separate petition for eviction of the tenant/appellant from each of the shop portions but the lower appellate court committed error and concluded that respondent entitled for order of eviction in respect of the two shop as such is misconception of law and facts and liable to be set aside. Further he submitted that lease agreeement is in subsistence hence the New Act will not apply to the present case. Further to substantiate his claim the petitioner relied the following judgments. 1. P. Govindasamy Naicker Vs. S.R.Kerwar reported in 1969 II MLJ 452. 2. Umsalma Bibi Vs R.Lakkia Gowder reported in 1967 II MLJ 8277. 3. Further he submitted that lease agreeement is in subsistence hence the New Act will not apply to the present case. Further to substantiate his claim the petitioner relied the following judgments. 1. P. Govindasamy Naicker Vs. S.R.Kerwar reported in 1969 II MLJ 452. 2. Umsalma Bibi Vs R.Lakkia Gowder reported in 1967 II MLJ 8277. 3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that two shops were let out to the tenant, first shop in the year 1999 and the second shop in the year 2004. Further the tenant paid rent for two shops through single Demand Draft. Thereafter the petitioner has defaulted in payment of rent from the month of February 2020 and also not paid Electricity bill. Further, the tenant/petitioner herein paid rent for two shops through single Demand Draft for the purpose of evading the rent control proceedings the tenant raised this plea that there were two different tenancies hence single RLTOP is not maintainable. Further to support his contention he relied the D.D sent by the appellant/petitioner dated 11.08.2022, after filing of the RLTOP proceedings which clearly denotes that he enclosed the cheque for a sum of Rs.10,500/- towards the rental arrears so also he enclosed cheque for the month of September, November and December 2022 and January 2023 upto February 2023 he enclosed a cheque for 10,500/- as rent for two shops such conduct of the tenant appellant herein clearly implies that he always treat tenancy as one and sent the rent through one D.D or through cheque. Even after initiation of RLTOP proceedings, if really tenant treated the tenancy for two shops he should have sent two cheques or D.D. But all these days he used to sent rent through one cheque or one D.D therefore for the sake of arguments now the petitioner raised this plea that two separate application should have filed by the land lord as such is unacceptable one. Another objection raised by the tenant is that first rental agreement entered between the tenant and land lord on 01.12.1999 with regard to first shop which still in subsistence therefore new rent Act will not apply for this case. For which, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per Clause 2 of lease agreement dated 01.12.1999 lease agreement will renewed every three years. But in the present case the leased agreedment is renewed. For which, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per Clause 2 of lease agreement dated 01.12.1999 lease agreement will renewed every three years. But in the present case the leased agreedment is renewed. Therefore, the contention of the tenant that lease agreement is still is subsistence as such is not acceptable. Further to substantiate his claim the respondent relied the judgment in the case of T.N. Krishnamoorthy Vs Jagat Textiles reported in Manu/TN/0416/1980 and also relied the judgment reported in CDJ 2007 SC 635. 4. On perusal of the lease agreement with regard to first shop it was entered between the land lord and the tenant in the year 1999 only for the period of three years. Further as per the condition of the lease agreement 10 % of rent will be increased every three year but contrarily the tenant relied the clause 2 of the lease agreement claiming that as such lease agreement is renewed. As rightly pointed out by the land lord, even before initiating RLTOP proceedings notice was issued by the land lord on 20.11.2020 regarding rental arrears and also the tenant committed default in payment of rent hence he asked to vacate the premises and hand over the possession to land lord. Since rental agreement was expired and the same was not renewed. Though the reply was given by the tenant for the said notice, he was not complied with the terms of the notice nor he expressed his willingness to renew the lease agreement and it was expired long back ago. Therefore the tenant failed to renew the tenenancy. Besides, the tenant committed default in payment of monthly rent. Though the tenant sent D.D for a sum of Rs.10,500/-, the land lord claimed rent to the tune of Rs. 11,700/- for first shop and a sum of Rs.7,789/- for the second shop, the land lord not to increase the rent unilaterally by issuing the notice dated 20.11.2020 as such is not permissible because as per the terms of lease agreement entered between them the land lord has no power to fix or increase the rent unilaterally which was not appreciated by the Court below. As a tenant the petitioner herein failed to renew the lease agreement hence the lease agreement is not in force which was rightly appreciated by the Court below needs no interference. As a tenant the petitioner herein failed to renew the lease agreement hence the lease agreement is not in force which was rightly appreciated by the Court below needs no interference. Furthermore, as per new Rent Control Act both the applicant and respondent had not entered into an agreement within period of 575 days from the announcement of the new Act. Further, the land lord is entitled to vacate the premises and the same was rightly appreciated by the Court below needs no interference. However, In respect of other aspects findings of the Court below is confirmed. 5. In result, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. Further, the petitioner is directed to vacate the premise within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No cost. Consequentially, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.