CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. K.Rajammal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 16-7-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMC.R.P.NPD Nos.36 to 42 of 2006andCMP Nos.266 to 269 of 2006Kothandaraman.. Petitioner in CRP 36 & 40/2006Anusuya.. Petitioner in CRP 37 & 39/2006Mangayarkarasi.. Petitioner in CRP 38, 41 and 42/2006vsK.Rajammal.. Respondent in all revisionsCRP Nos.36 to 41/2006 preferred under Sec.25 of the Tamil NaduBuildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973and 1 of 1980 against the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2005 made in RCANos.788, 789, 790, 798, 799 and 800 of 2004 on the file of the VIII SmallCauses Court, (Appellate Authority), Chennai, confirming the order anddecree dated 12.4.2004 made in RCOP Nos.439, 441, 440, 1038, 1039 and 1037of 2003 on the file of the XIV Small Causes Court (Rent Controller),Chennai.CRP No.42/2006 preferred under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and 1 of1980 against the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2005 made in RCA No.1325of 2004 on the file of the VIII Small Causes Court, (Appellate Authority),Chennai, confirming the order and decree dated 16.9.2004 made in RCOPNo.1370 of 2002 on the file of the XIV Small Causes Court (RentController), Chennai.For Petitioners: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for Mr.P.RajagopalFor Respondent: Mr.P.B.Balaji https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDERThis order shall govern all the above seven revision petitions.2.The unsuccessful tenants, three in number, who have suffered anorder of eviction in the three RCOPs filed by the respondent-landlady inRCOP Nos.439, 440 and 441 of 2003, and whose appeals in RCA Nos.788, 789and 790 of 2004 have failed, have brought forth three revisions in CRPNos.36, 37 and 38 of 2006 respectively. 3.Equally, on dismissal of the three RCOPs filed by the tenants fordeposit of rental arrears under Sec.8(5) of the Act in RCOP Nos.1037, 1038and 1039 of 2003, they preferred three appeals in RCA Nos.798, 799 and 800of 2004, and on dismissal of the same, they have brought forth the otherthree revisions in CRP Nos.39, 40 and 41 of 2006 respectively. 4.The landlady filed another petition in RCOP No.1370 of 2002 againstthe tenant who is actually shown as the respondent in RCOP No.440/2003,seeking eviction on the grounds of personal use and occupation andadditional accommodation, and the said petition was ordered. Aggrieved,the said tenant took it on appeal in RCA No.1325 of 2004, and on itsfailure, she brought forth CRP No.42/2006.5.The respondent-landlady filed the above three RCOPs against therevision petitioners-tenants alleging in short that the premises wereoccupied by the revision petitioners-tenants on monthly rental basis atthe rate of Rs.375/-, Rs.525/- and Rs.540/- respectively; that there hasbeen arrears of rent from September 2002 till January 2003, and thus,there was willful default, and under the circumstances, they were to beevicted.6.The revision petitioners-tenants namely the respondents in thoseRCOPs, contested the same stating that there was neither default norwillful default; that it is true that they have been the tenants onmonthly rental basis; that for the three months namely September, Octoberand November 2002, there was water tax arrears; that under thecircumstances, there was termination of water connection; that they issueda notice to the landlady; but, she did not comply with the demand madetherein; that under the circumstances, after issuing a notice, each tenanthas paid the entire water tax arrears; that thereafter, it was adjustedtowards the rents for the months of September, October and November 2002;that for these periods, the electricity charges were sent by money orders;but, they were refused; that as regards the rent for the month of December2002, an application under Sec.8(5) of the Act was filed by every tenant;that they were also pending, and under the circumstances, all the aboveRCOPs filed by the landlady were to be dismissed.7.The revision petitioners-tenants filed RCOP Nos.1037, 1038 and 1039of 2003 stating that after adjusting the payment of water tax arrearstowards rental arrears for September, October and November 2002,electricity charges were sent by money orders; but, they were refused, andunder the circumstances, they had no chance than to approach the RentController for depositing the rental from the month of December 2002; thataccordingly, they have applied for, and hence, they should be permitted tomake the deposit thereon. All these three petitions were contested by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ landlady. 8.On enquiry jointly by the Rent Controller, all the above petitionsfiled by the landlady, were allowed, and the petitions filed by thetenants, were dismissed. The appeals at the instance of the tenantsfailed, and hence, the above six revisions have been brought forth by thetenants before this Court. 9.One more petition was filed by the landlady stating that she isaged 70 years; that she is suffering from hypertension and diabetics; thatshe is occupying the premises in the second floor; that due to her age andillness, she finds it difficult to occupy the same; that under suchcircumstances, she requires one of the premises found in the ground floor;that for her personal use and occupation and also for additionalaccommodation, she wants the portion which is being occupied by therespondent in RCOP No.440/2003, and hence, she brought forth RCOP No.1370of 2002. This petition was contested by the respondent-tenant therein,who is the revision petitioner in CRP No.38 of 2006, stating that thereasons put forth by the landlady namely illness, etc., were all utterfalsehood; that she was not suffering from any illness; that at the timewhen the RCOP was filed, the two portions in the first floor were actuallyvacant; that had it been true, she would have occupied the said portion;that this would indicate that it lacks bonafide; that apart from that,both the grounds of personal use and occupation and additionalaccommodation cannot co-exist; that as far as the ground of personal useand occupation is concerned, it is an admitted position that she is havingother property which is available; that under the circumstances, theground of additional accommodation is without any bonafide whatsoever, andhence, the petition was to be dismissed. On enquiry, the Rent Controllerallowed the petition. Aggrieved, the tenant took it on appeal, which alsomet the same fate. Hence, the revision in CRP No.42/2006.10.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the revision petitioners, thelearned Senior Counsel would submit that in the instant case, the tenantsare actually in three tenements occupying the premises which belonged tothe landlady; that they have been there for more than decades; that thereis already water connection; that due to the non-payment of the water tax,there was a disconnection by the Board; that it was actually due to thenon-payment by the landlady; that there was a notice issued by the tenantson 26.9.2002 as found under Ex.P3, stating the circumstances for therestoration of the water connection immediately, and if not, they had noother option than to spend for the same and adjust the payment towards therents payable by them for the months of September, October and November2002; but, no steps were actually taken by the landlady; that on thecontrary, a reply notice was issued on 30.12.2002 containing evasive andfalse allegations; that only by the said compelling circumstances, theyhad to make the payment of water charges and tax to the Board, andthereby, they had restoration of the water connection; that all thetenants have paid more than three months' rental at a time; that for themonths of September, October and November 2002, a lump sum payment towardsthe water tax was also divided among them; that they have adjusted thesame towards the rents for these three months; that every month, there wasa money order sent for the electricity charges; but, they were allrefused; and that under the circumstances, they had no option than to fileapplications under Sec.8(5) of the Act for the deposit of rental fromDecember 2002. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that in the instant case,there was a termination of water connection; that the landlady was alsoreminded by way of a notice; that even then, it was not complied with;that it is true that the petitioners-tenants have not approached the RentController by filing an application under Sec.17 of the Act forrestoration of the amenity; that this Sec.17 is only an enablingprovision; that it is not compulsory that they should adopt thatprocedure; that in the instant case, they have sent a notice forrestoration of the amenity; but, it was not done; and that while therewere compelling circumstances available, there was all possibility forthem to adopt the procedure of making the payment. 12.The learned Senior Counsel would further add that in the instantcase, there was no two months' notice issued; that even the notice thatwas issued by the landlady, was only a reply to the original notice issuedby the tenants namely Ex.P3; that under the circumstances, there is noquestion of willful default that would arise; that in order to show thatthere was a willful default, there must have been supine indifference orrecalcitrant attitude or willful act; that in the instant case, it cannotbe stated so for the simple reason that if there were no compellingcircumstances, there was no need for them to make the payment; thatfurther, it is not the case of the landlady that there was any default inthe past; that only because of the compelling circumstances, they havedone so, and hence, they are justified in making the payment of water taxarrears and also in adjusting the same in the monthly rental; that underthe circumstances, all the RCOPs filed by the landlady, should have beendismissed by the Rent Controller; that even without considering either thefactual or legal position, the appellate authority has also affirmed thesame, and hence, those orders of the authorities below have got to be setaside. 13.In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied onthe following decisions:(i) 1985 (I) MLJ 354 (K.MOHIDEEN SAHIB V. THEODRE SAMUEL);(ii) 1989-2-L.W. 68 (JANAKI DEVI V. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR);(iii) 1998 (I) CTC 679 (MANGALAMBAL V. ANJALI DEVI);(iv) 1998 (III) CTC 56 (M.K.SANKARAN V. S.BIRLASEKARAN ANDANOTHER); (v) 2000 (I) CTC 742 (M/S.CHORDIA AUTOMOBILES V. S.MOOSA ANDOTHERS);(vi) 2000 MLJ (SUPP.) 270 (KASTURI V. PADMA);(vii) 2000 (I) CTC 137 (V.S.HAMID SULTAN V. ABDUL LATHEEF); and(viii) 2003 (3) CTC 348 (P.M.PUNNOOSE V. K.M.MUNNERUDDIN ANDOTHERS).14.As far as the other RCOP on the grounds of personal use andoccupation and additional accommodation is concerned, the learned SeniorCounsel would submit that in the instant case, there is no materialavailable to show that she was old; that merely because she was 70 yearsold, one cannot say that she could not occupy the other premisesavailable; that the case of the landlady is that she is occupying thesecond floor, and due to her old age, she could not climb up to the secondfloor; that at the time of the filing of the RCOP, two portions wereavailable in the first floor; that had it been true and genuine case, shewould have occupied the same, but not done so; and that this would be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ indicative of the lack of bonafide. 15.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that in the instant case,for getting an order of eviction on the ground of personal use andoccupation, the first and foremost condition is the non-availability ofany premises for the landlord; that in the instant case, there are otherportions available in the premises in question, which is also an admittedposition; that under the circumstances, it could be occupied by thelandlady; that as regards the ground of additional accommodation, therewas no need, and it lacks bonafide; that one cannot co-exist with theother; that under the circumstances, the authorities below have notconsidered this aspect of the matter, and hence, it should have beenrejected, and all these revisions have got to be allowed setting aside theorders of the authorities below.16.In answer to the above, it is contended by the learned Counsel forthe respondent-landlady that in the instant case, the landlady cameforward to file the RCOPs alleging that there was rental arrears for themonths of September, October, November and December 2002 and January 2003;that the only plea that was taken by the tenants, was that there waspayment of water tax arrears; that at one stage, they have stated that itwas water tax arrears; that at the other stage, it was stated as watercharges; that arrears of water tax must be paid by the landlady; thatarrears of water charges should be paid by the tenants; that at one stage,it was stated that there was a termination made by the department; that atanother stage, it was stated that it was done by the landlady as found inthe notice; that in the instant case, there were no compellingcircumstances at all for the simple reason that even the termination asper the notice was made in the month of September 2002; but, they havepaid only in the month of November 2002; that for two months they havewaited; that if they felt any urgency, they should have filed anapplication for restoration of the amenity; but, they have not done so;that in the instant case, there was not even a notice from the departmentfor making payment; that they have voluntarily made the payment; thatafter making such voluntary payment, they cannot now come forward to saythat they were under compelling circumstances; that even the service ofnotice was not made; that apart from that, when no notice was served, theywere not expected to make the payment; but, they have made so; that it waspurposefully done in order to create a cause of action; that it is truethat they issued a notice under Ex.P3; that after sending such a notice,if not the amenity is restored, the only course open to them is to go forthe restoration of the amenity; that in the instant case, for the use ofthe water, actually, it was their liability to make the payment; but, theyhave not paid the water charges; that the landlady is not under anyliability to make any payment of water charges; and that since they havenot paid, they had suffered a termination for which they cannot find faultwith the landlady. 17.Added further the learned Counsel that in the instant case, eventhe adjustments, which they have made, were wrongly done; that under thecircumstances, there were no compelling circumstances, and it was awillful default; that further, applications under Sec.8(5) of the Act werefiled for deposit of rental arrears from the month of December 2002 andalso thereafter; that as such, for the months of September, October andNovember 2002, no payment of rental arrears was made at all; that thoughthe applications were made for deposit of rental arrears from December https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2002, they have not deposited for the period from December 2002 toSeptember 2003; but, the entire payment was made only in Court to theCounsel for the landlady, for a period of 10 months at a time; that onceapplications have been filed under Sec.10(2) of the Act for eviction onthe ground of willful default, there was no impediment for the tenants tomake the payment in that proceedings only; that the applications underSec.8(5) of the Act were pending for a long time; that they have notdeposited the rental arrears or made payment all along the period of 10months; that this would be indicative of the fact that they continued tocommit default even during the pendency of the proceedings; that even atthis stage, pending the revisions, they have not made payment all alongthe period continuously; that under the circumstances, in all stages, theyhave committed willful default, and hence, the orders of eviction passedby the lower authorities, have got to be sustained. 18.As regards the petition for eviction on the grounds of personaluse and occupation and additional accommodation, the learned Counsel forthe respondent would submit that it is an admitted position that she isaged 70; that she has been occupying the second floor; that a landlady of70 years old should not be compelled to occupy a portion which is in thesecond floor; that in such a situation, one would expect her to occupy aportion what is available in the ground floor; that it is true that at thetime when the RCOP was filed two portions were available in the firstfloor; that it is not for the tenants to say that she could occupy any oneof the portions in the first floor; that a lady of 70 years old, who issuffering from ailment, desired to occupy a portion in the ground floor;that there cannot be any impediment in law for allowing her to occupy sucha portion; that under the circumstances, it was with bonafide; that onappreciation of the available circumstances, there was an order ofeviction on that ground, and hence, the order is not to be interferedwith, and it has got to be sustained. 19.In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel relied on thefollowing decisions:(i) 1991-2-L.W. 203 (MANORANJITHAM V. T.S.GANGABAI);(ii) 1995-1-MLJ 254 (P.GOVINDARAJU V. S.P.KRISHNAN AND OTHERS);(iii) 1997-2-L.W. 567 (S.SUNDARARAJAN V. S.A.VISWANATHAN CHETTYAND ANOTHER) and(iv) 1999 (I) CTC 146 (AYYAMPERUMAL V. SHAIK DAWOOD ROWTHER).20.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the rival submissionsmade. 21.It is not in controversy that these revision petitioners three innumber, are the tenants under the landlady, who is the respondent herein,in respect of three tenements in the petitions mentioned premises andmaking the payment of monthly rental. The landlady filed the petitionsfor eviction on the ground of willful default alleging that there wasrental arrears for the months of September, October, November and December2002 and January 2003 i.e., for a period of five months. The main defenceplea was that the tenants have paid the water charges and water tax; thatit has been adjusted towards the rents for the months of September,October and November 2002; that during these three months' period, theyhave sent the electricity charges every month by money orders; but, theywere refused; that under the circumstances, they had no option than tomake the payment for the restoration of the amenity; that they were under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ compelling circumstances to pay the same, and accordingly, they have paid;that the same has also been adjusted, and hence, it cannot be termed aswillful default. After careful consideration of the submissions made, andthe factual position as could be seen in the instant case, and applyingthe principle of law, this Court is of the considered opinion that therewas willful default for the following reasons. 22.It is not in controversy that the petitioners are the tenantsunder the landlady on monthly rental basis. It is an admitted positionthat they have actually not paid the rental for the months of September,October and November 2002. They have sent the money orders which wouldinclude only the electricity consumption charges. They have filedapplications for depositing the rental arrears in Court under Sec.8(5) ofthe Act from the month of December 2002. Thus, the prime question thatwould arise for consideration would be whether the non-payment of rentalfor the months of September, October and November 2002 could be termed aswillful default as put forth by the landlady or whether by compellingcircumstances, they have made payment of the water charges and tax, andhence, it should not be construed as a default or willful default.Concededly, the rental payment for these three months was not made.According to the landlady, it was a willful default. It is true that nonotice has been issued for recovery of those payments. Once the landladycalls it as arrears and willful default, the tenants came forward with thedefence plea to state that there was no default or willful default at all.While it is an admitted fact that there was arrears of three months'rental, and the tenants have come forward with the explanation to offerthat it is true that it was not paid; but, the non-payment was due to thecircumstances, a duty is cast upon the tenants to show that they arejustified in not making the payment of rental, and hence, it cannot becalled as willful default. 23.In the instant case, the circumstances are as follows.Admittedly, there is a water connection for the entire premises. Thepayment of water tax is one thing, and the payment of water charges isother thing. As far as water tax is concerned, it is understandable thatit has got to be paid by the landlady; but, the water charges has got tobe paid by the tenants. In the instant case, at one stage, they wouldplead that it was actually water tax, and at another stage, they wouldcall it as water charges. The earliest notice emanated from the tenants,is Ex.P3, wherein they have specifically stated that termination of theamenity was done by the landlady. It was not their case in the noticethat it was made by the department. When the matter came before theCourt, their contention in the counter averments and also in evidence wasthat it was done by the department. The earliest notice was issued on26.9.2002. Needless to say that water supply is an amenity as understoodunder the provisions of the Act. If to be so, when there was atermination of amenity, there is a specific provision under Sec.17 of theAct for the restoration of the same. Immediately, they would haveapproached the Rent Controller for the restoration of the amenity; but,they have not done so. On the contrary, they would say by the said noticethat there were compelling circumstances; that the water connection wasterminated; that steps must be taken by the landlady immediately, and ifnot done, they have to get it restored. This Court is at a loss tounderstand, while there is a specific provision available there, why theycould not approach the Rent Controller immediately, and that too, hadthere been urgency or compelling circumstance as pleaded by the tenants https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ all along, why they did not take steps for a period of two months. Theyhave paid only after a period of two months for getting restoration, andin these two months, why they could not approach the Rent Controller andget immediate orders; but, they have not done so. 24.In the instant case, there was not even a notice served by thedepartment for payment of water tax or water charges. In the absence ofthe same, it would be quite clear that it was a voluntary act done by thetenants for making payment of water tax and in order to adjust the same.All these rulings relied on by the revision petitioners' side and statedsupra, are perused. All these would clearly go to show that whenevercompelling circumstances are available, they could make the payment. Inall those cases, there was a notice issued by the department for paymentof tax or there was a distraint notice. In the instant case, it was notso. Apart from that, once they proceeded with the only safeguard thatthere was termination of amenity by the landlady, they should haveapproached the Rent Controller under Sec.17 of the Act, but not done so.When it came before the authority below, they came with the different casestating that it was done by the department. Since they have not followedthe provisions of Sec.17 of the Act, now they wanted to have a new pleathat it was made by the department. Now, at this juncture, the contentionput forth by the learned Senior Counsel that it was only an enablingprovision in order to get the restoration of amenity under Sec.17 of theAct, and even without going with that provision, they could adopt thismethod would be against the legislation. Even if it has got to beaccepted, there should have been a termination of the amenity by thelandlady. 25.Now, the decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioners and reported in 2000 MLJ (SUPP.) 270 (KASTURI V. PADMA) isapplicable to a case where termination of the amenity was made by thelandlord. It was a case where even the justification was available forthe tenant to withhold the rent. In the instant case, even the landladywas also enjoying the same amenity. When the termination was made by thedepartment, the landlady was also suffering during the relevant period.Thus, it would be indicative of the fact that the termination was made bythe department. When the provision of law was available for them toapproach the Rent Controller and get remedy, they have not done so. Onthe contrary, they have made the payment voluntarily and adjusted thesame; but, they have sent only the electricity charges. That would beindicative of the fact that even after knowing the consequence of thesame, they have not done so. Even after that, they filed the applicationsfor deposit of rental from the month of December 2002. It remains to bestated that the petitions for eviction on the ground of willful defaulthave already been filed, and they were also pending. Pending the same,the applications filed by the tenants, have also been numbered, and theyhave also been pending in the same Court. Needless to say, pendency of anapplication for eviction under Sec.10(2) of the Act cannot be animpediment for making payment of rental in the very same proceedings,Thus, it can be well stated that the applications under Sec.8(5) of theAct were nothing but superfluous. 26.In the case on hand, even in that applications under Sec.8(5) ofthe Act, the rents were not actually deposited; but, for the first time,the rent was paid to the Counsel for the landlady in the Court only inOctober 2003, that too after a period of nearly 10 months. This would be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ indicative of the fact that neither the rent was deposited in theapplications under Sec.8(5) of the Act nor it was paid in the pendingproceedings under Sec.10(2) of the Act for willful default, but paid aftera period of 10 months. This Court is unable to agree with the explanationtendered that they could not make the deposit before the Rent Controllerin the applications under Sec.8(5) of the Act, and the Counsel appearingfor the landlady in the proceedings under Sec.10(2) of the Act did notreceive, and thus, the rental arrears have accumulated. In a given caselike this, where a landlord comes forward with an application under Sec.10(2) of the Act on the ground of willful default, the Court would expectthat there should not be any arrears of rental falling even during thependency of the proceedings. In this case, it has accumulated for aperiod of 10 months. 27.Adding circumstance is the tenor of the notice issued under Ex.P3through a Counsel. Once there was a termination of amenity as put forththerein, the regular course open to the tenants is to file an applicationunder Sec.17 of the Act for restoration of the amenity. But, the lawyer'snotice would indicate that steps must be taken by the landlady, and ifnot, they would take necessary steps for restoration, and the cost must beborne by the landlady thereafter. This would go to show that even at theearliest, they wanted to make up the non-payment of rental in such a wayand to complicate the situation. That apart, they are not certain as towhether they paid water tax or water charges. However, both these havebeen clubbed together. According to them, they have paid both. Under theabove stated circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion thatnot following the recourse of law, and withholding the rental, and makingvoluntary payment to the department, that too without notice, and havingbeen conscious of these facts, they cannot plead ignorance of law or theprovisions of the Act. The same, in the opinion of this Court, would beindifferent and recalcitrant attitude on the part of the tenants, whichhas got to be termed only as willful default. This Court is of the viewthat it is a fit case where eviction should be ordered, and it wasaccordingly done by the authorities below. This Court is unable to noticeanything to interfere in the orders of the authorities below in respect ofeviction on the ground of willful default. The authorities below wereperfectly correct in dismissing the petitions filed by the tenants underSec.8(5) of the Act. Accordingly, the orders of the authorities below aresustained. 28.As far as the other grounds of personal use and occupation andadditional accommodation are concerned, admittedly, the landlady is aged70. According to her, she is suffering from hypertension and diabetics,and she wants to come down to the ground floor and occupy the premises.Needless to say when a landlady who is suffering from ailment, wants tolive in the ground floor in her seventies, nothing would impede her fromoccupying the premises. The other contentions that both these grounds didnot co-exist; that two portions were available already in the first floor;and that she can chose any one of them, do not merit acceptance. In suchcircumstances, that ground is actually available for her. In view of herage and ailment, no impediment could be felt in allowing her to occupy herproperty in the ground floor, and hence, the orders of the authoritiesbelow on that grounds have also got to be sustained. Accordingly, theorders of the authorities below are sustained. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

29.Now, at this juncture, the learned Counsel for the petitionerswould submit that all of them are occupying the premises for residentialpurposes for a longtime; that they have to find out suitableaccommodation, and for vacating and handing over possession, sufficienttime has got to be granted. The Court heard the learned Counsel for therespondent also. This Court feels that reasonable time has got to begranted. Accordingly, six months' time is granted to them for vacatingand handing over possession. An undertaking affidavit should be filedwithin a period of two weeks herefrom. 30.In the result, all these civil revision petitions require an orderof dismissal, and accordingly, they are dismissed. No costs.Consequently, connected CMPs are also dismissed.nsv/Sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority The VIII Judge Court of Small Causes Chennai2.The Rent Controller The XIV Judge Court of Small Causes Chennai3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.+4 ccs to M/s.P.B.Ramanujam, Advocate Sr.No.42960 to 42963.+1 cc to Mr P.Rajagopal, Advocate Sr.No.43387.AKR(CO)dcp/12.10CRP NPD Nos.36 to 42of 2006