Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1612 (MAD)

L. Ramesh v. T. Vedavalli

2025-03-20

T.V.THAMILSELVI

body2025
JUDGMENT : T.V. Thamilselvi, J. The appellants, who are the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No. 3272 of 2018, challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below rendered in A.S.No. 136 of 2023 by the XXIII Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai arising out of trial court findings rendered in O.S.No.3272 of 2018 by the XI Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, have preferred this Second Appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the suit. 3. Before the trial court, the plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants 1 and 2 stating that as the tenants, they enjoyed the suit property and paid the rent regularly. But, the landlord/defendants unlawfully caused interference and threatened them to vacate from the suit property within few days, failing which they will be thrown out from the suit property. Therefore, they have approached the court for the relief of permanent injunction not to cause interference. 4. The said suit was contested by the defendants stating that the plaintiffs are not in regular payment of rent. They have contended that from the year of 2017 onwards, they have not paid the rent, but they came forward with the present suit with false statement as if they caused interference, in fact, the defendants have not caused any such interference. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. Before the trial court, four issues were framed. On considering both oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, the trial judge dismissed the suit by holding that from April 2017 onwards there was no rent paid by the plaintiffs, thereafter, they have paid lumpsum amount of Rs.42,000/- as rent arrears for the period from April 2017 to March 2018 and that the said amount was realised before filing the suit through cheque and thereafter, they have paid rent. Therefore, they are not tenants and they are illegally occupying the suit property nor they proved that the defendants have threatened them. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. 6. Challenging the said findings, the plaintiffs have preferred an Appeal Suit in A.S.No. 136 of 2023, wherein the first appellate judge independently analysed the facts and found that father of plaintiffs was the original tenant and after his demise, the plaintiffs are occupying the suit property as tenants and paid the rent to the defendants. 6. Challenging the said findings, the plaintiffs have preferred an Appeal Suit in A.S.No. 136 of 2023, wherein the first appellate judge independently analysed the facts and found that father of plaintiffs was the original tenant and after his demise, the plaintiffs are occupying the suit property as tenants and paid the rent to the defendants. But, there is a default in payment of rent from April 2017 to March 2018 and also there is no evidence that defendants have threatened them by causing interference. Therefore, the first appellate judge dismissed the Appeal Suit by confirming the findings of trial judge. Challenging the said findings, the plaintiffs have preferred this Second Appeal. 7. The learned counsel for appellants prayed to set aside the concurrent findings of courts below by raising the following grounds :- (a) The trial court failed to see that since the respondents did not come to collect the rents from April 2017, the rents were sent through cheque, which was not received. Subsequently, through a letter dated 23.04.2018 (Ex.A7) a cheque towards rent for April 2017 to March 2018 was paid. The respondents replied to the said letter vide Ex.A8, dated 26.04.2018 giving bank details of the 2nd respondent for depositing of the rents, following which the rents were deposited into the Bank account of the 2nd respondent. All these factum have been ignored by the trial court resulting in an erroneous judgment being passed. (b) The trial court erred in coming to the conclusion that from April 2017 the rents have not been paid and that no proof has been given to show that from April 2017 onwards the rents have been paid. Ex.A6, Ex.A7, Ex.A8 and Ex.A9, which is a Bank statement would clearly show that the rents have been paid from April 2017 onwards also. (c) The courts below had miserably failed and even ignored the admission made by the respondents both in the written statement as well as in the cross examination about the payment of rents into the Bank account of the 2nd respondent. (d) The courts below had miserably failed in ignoring the vital documentary evidence and admission in written statement and evidence of the respondents resulting in erroneous judgment. (d) The courts below had miserably failed in ignoring the vital documentary evidence and admission in written statement and evidence of the respondents resulting in erroneous judgment. (e)The courts below having found that the appellants are in possession of the suit property ought not to have given a finding that they are in unauthorised occupation in view of non-payment of rents from April 2017. (f) The court below erred in coming to the conclusion that there was no threat on 27.06.2018. (g)The courts below finding is in contravention to the settled legal principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court pertaining to settled possession of a tenant in the suit property and the remedy available to the landlord/owner. (h) The appellate court had recorded a finding that the appellants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as tenants, but in the later portion of the judgment has concurred with the trial court and erred that the appellants are not in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property as tenants. (i) The lower appellate court failed to take note that Ex.A9, Ex.A11 and documents filed along with I.A.No.2 of 2023 would show that the rents have been paid continuously without any default. (j) The lower appellate court having taken a decision that I.A.No.2 of 2023 will be taken up along with the Appeal but erroneously failed to pass orders in I.A.No.2 of 2023, which was called along with appeal. This resulted in erroneous judgment being passed. (k) The lower appellate court erred in concurring with the trial court findings that the rents are not being paid by ignoring valid documents, admissions and pleadings. (l) The lower appellate court erred in finding that the exercising of discretionary power by the lower court cannot be interfered. (m) The lower appellate court erred in coming into the conclusion that by granting injunction, hardship would be caused to the respondent. Admittedly, the lower appellate court has found that the appellants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as tenants and further rents are being paid without any default till date. (m) The lower appellate court erred in coming into the conclusion that by granting injunction, hardship would be caused to the respondent. Admittedly, the lower appellate court has found that the appellants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as tenants and further rents are being paid without any default till date. Hence, there cannot be any hardship to the respondent in granting the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the appellants peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property either by evicting unlawfully or in any other manner except by following due process of law. By submitting the above grounds, learned counsel argues that the courts below failed to take note of documents Ex.A9 and Ex.A11 and also failed to take note of the fact that they have not committed any wilful default in payment of rent, but they have paid the rent regularly, so they cannot be evicted by due process of law and not by other illegal mode. Moreover, the courts below failed to take note of conduct of defendants and erroneously dismissed the suit. Hence, he prayed to set aside the findings of courts below. 8. Heard and considered submissions of learned counsel for appellants and perused the materials available on record. 9. On perusal of records, it reveals that originally, the father of appellants/plaintiffs viz., N.G.Loganathan was the original tenant under one Subramaniam, who died in the year 1998 as unmarried and 1st defendant, being his brother's daughter, as a class-II legal heir entitled to collect rents. Thereafter, their father paid the rent of Rs.3500/- to the 1st defendant regularly. While so, on 12.12.2016 father of plaintiffs Loganathan died. Thereafter, the plaintiffs continued the tenancy and paid the rent and carrying on business in the schedule mentioned property. Upto March 2017, they have collected the rent, but thereafter the defendants did not come forward to collect rents, however, they are ready to pay the rent, all of a sudden, with the henchmen, they have caused interference. Hence, they have come forward with the suit. After filing the suit, the plaintiffs paid the arrears of rent in lumpsum for the period from April 2017 to March 2018 through cheque. Hence, they have come forward with the suit. After filing the suit, the plaintiffs paid the arrears of rent in lumpsum for the period from April 2017 to March 2018 through cheque. If at all, even assuming that the defendants not come forward to collect the rent, they are entitled to deposit the rent as per manner known to law, but the plaintiffs have not taken any steps, however, they came forward with the suit as if the landlord caused interference. Before filing the suit, nearly about 11 months, there was no rent paid by the plaintiffs and they attempted to pay lumpsum amount through cheque upto March 2018. Therefore, both the courts below rightly observed that the plaintiffs have committed default in payment of rent, which needs no interference. Furthermore, since the plaintiffs' conduct itself shows that by sending lumpsum amount of rent arrears, they have committed wilful default and the same was rightly observed by the courts below, which needs no interference. The plaintiffs also claimed that landlord threatening them stating that they would thrown out them from the suit property, but admittedly, at the time of filing suit, the 1st defendant was aged about 75 years and 2nd defendant was suffered with cancer disease. So, there is no proof that they have caused interference. The trial court rightly observed that after April 2017, they are not tenants and they are illegally occupying the premises, but after filing of the suit, they have subsequently paid the arrears of rent according to plaintiffs, but before filing the suit, there is wilful default in payment of rent, which was rightly observed by the courts below. Hence, there is no cause of action arose for filing the suit as well as there is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal for consideration. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed as no merit and the findings of the courts below rendered in A.S.No.136 of 2023 on the file of XIII Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is confirmed. Suit is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.