High Court · 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 25.8.2005.CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AR.RAMALINGAMC.R.P.(NPD)No.1583 and 1584 of 20021. S.Rajam 1st petitioner in CRP No.1583of 2002/Sole Petitioner in CRP No.1584 of 20022. M.E.Boomappan3. T.S.Saradha4. M.E.Gowrisankar 5. M.E.Srinivasan6. M.E.Girija7. M.E.SingaraveluPetitioners 2 to 7 in CRP 1583 of2002 alonevs. M/s.Raja Stores, rep. by its ProprietorS.Ravichandran,32, North Mada Street, Mylapore, Chennai-4. Respondent in both CRPsCivil Revision Petition against the decretal order dated19.9.2001 in R.C.A.Nos.746 and 744 of 1997 passed by theAppellate Authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennaireversing the order dated 22.4.1997 in R.C.O.P.Nos.1479 and 879of 1995 on the file of the Rent Controller (XIII Judge, Court ofSmall Causes), Chennai. For petitioners: Mr.S.S.MathivananFor respondent : Mr.S.Navaneethakrishnan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDERAggrieved against the order passed by the appellateauthority cum VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai inR.C.A.No.746 of 1997 and 744 of 1997 in and by which theeviction order passed by the Rent Controller cum XIII Judge,Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.O.P.Nos.1479 and 879 of1995 has been set aside, the landlords have filed these revisionpetitions. 2. The landlords' case before the Rent Controller in briefcan be narrated as hereunder:-The petition mentioned premises belong to the landlords andthe respondent herein viz., M/s.Raja Stores is the tenant ofthe premises and the agreed tenancy is according to Englishcalendar month. The tenant is continuing the business in metalworks even after his father's death who originally became thetenant of the premises. Whileso, the tenant is not regular inpaying the rents and has also committed wilful default inpayment of rents from September 1992 onwards inspite of repeateddemands made by the landlords. Therefore, the tenant is liableto be evicted on the ground of wilful default under theprovisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act. 3. Both the petitions were resisted by the tenant by filingcounter to the effect that even from the lifetime of his father,the tenant viz., Ravichandran is conducting the business in thepetition mentioned premises on monthly tenancy arrangement. Hehas not committed wilful default in payment of rents. On theother hand, it is usual on the part of the landlords to collectthe rents from the tenant in lumpsums and thereby, no noticedemanding the payment of rents monthwise was issued by thelandlords. In such circumstances, the tenant cannot be foundfault as if he has committed wilful default and thereby liableto be evicted from the premises. 4. After having considered the oral and documentaryevidence, the Rent Controller cum XIII Judge, Court of SmallCauses has found and come to the conclusion that there is wilfuldefault on the part of the tenant and consequently, ordered foreviction in both the petitions. On appeal in R.C.A.Nos.744 and746 of 1997 preferred by the tenant, the appellate authority cumVIII Judge, Court of Small Causes has reversed the finding andset aside the order of eviction. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners,after taking me through the entire oral and documentaryevidence, submitted that the reversal order passed by theappellate authority is not proper and justified and instead theorder of eviction passed by the Rent Controller alone is properand justified and that the question of wilful default in paymentof rents in substance has to be appreciated upon the facts andcircumstances of each case and particularly the conduct of thetenant and the landlords in paying and receiving the rents.Even though the appellate authority has relied upon the rulingof the Honourable Supreme Court reported in RASHIK LAL v. SHAHGOKULDAS (AIR 1989 SC 920) and reversed the order of eviction,the facts and circumstances of the said ruling cannot be exactlymade applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case onhand. 6. He further pointed out that in the above cited rulingrelied on by the appellate authority is a case where the tenantalone was to make payment of rents in lumpsum ranging from twomonths to four months at a time and it was accepted by thelandlord without any protest or objection regularly and therebythe Honourable Supreme Court has held that the understanding canbe inferred to the effect that payment of rent can be made inlumpsums if it is convenience, etc. But, in this case, it ispertinent to note that the tenant has not only paid the rents inlumpsum to the landlords previously but also failed to pay rentsmonth after month even after filing of both the R.C.O.Ps. Onthe other hand, it is the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 to the effectthat they were demanding the monthly rents, but, the tenant onlyfailed to pay the rents regularly and was going on to pay it inlumpsums and without any other go, it was received by thelandlords then and there. 7. It was further submitted by the learned counselappearing for the revision petitioners that even during thecross examination of PW1 made on 29.10.1996, it has beensuggested by the tenant as "khjhkhjk; nfl;Lk; bfhLf;fhjjhy; vd; kidtp jhd; vjph;kDjhuh; filapy; ghj;jpuk; th';fp. mij thlifapy;fHpj;Jf;bfhs;tJ tHf;fk; vd;W brhd;dhy; mJ rhpay;y/" So, it is clear from the suggestion that the landlords withoutno other go only have chosen to purchase vessels from the shopof the tenant and adjust the rents and nothing else. Therefore,he further pointed out that it cannot be stated by the tenantthat no demand was made by the landlords for payment of monthly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rents regularly. It was further pointed out that the tenant andparticularly RW1 Ravichandran has gone to the extent of issuingcheques towards payment of rents due for many months and thosecheques also have been dishonoured for want of sufficient fundsand subsequently, after some time such cheque amounts have beenpaid as evidenced by Exs.P4 to P9. Further, the tenant haschosen to pay arrears of rent even after filing of the twoR.C.O.Ps and he was going on giving cheque to be dishonoured andthen paying the amount and getting receipts and those receiptsalso have been received by him without prejudice to the meritsof those R.C.O.Ps. 8. Therefore, the conduct of the tenant in this caseclearly goes to indicate that he was never regular in payment ofrents and particularly even after filing of the R.C.O.Ps., hewas not regular in paying rents and such conduct is nothing buta wilful one. No doubt, the landlords have been receiving therents in lumpsums without any other go and it does not mean thatthe landlords have given a go-by to the monthly tenancyarrangement. Considering the conduct of the tenant and thelandlord, I am of the view that the conduct of the landlordsappears to be reasonable and the conduct of the tenant onlyappears to be a wilful one in not having paid the rentsregularly month after month as per the monthly tenancyarrangement. 9. It is also not the stand or evidence of the tenant thatinspite of his tendering or payment of rents regularly monthafter month, the landlords alone were not ready to receive thesame and if it is so, it is not the attempt of the tenant toinvoke the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act to deposit the rents before theRent Controller to show his promptness and regularity in paymentof rents. It is also not necessary on the part of the landlordthat they should file application under section 11(4) in eachcase in order to get the rents. Taking note of the aboveobserved factors from the oral and documentary evidence andother circumstances, it is needless to say that the tenant hascommitted wilful default in payment of rents and consequently,the reversal order passed by the appellate authority cum VIIIJudge, Court of Small Causes is not a proper and justified oneand in turn, it is liable to be set aside and the order passedby the Rent Controller only has to be restored. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. Accordingly, both the civil revision petitions areallowed and the order passed by the appellate authority is setaside. No costs. Time for vacating the premises by the tenantis two months.ssk. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Registrar, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, High Court, Chennai. + 2 ccs to Mr.S.Navaneethakrishnan, Advocate SR No.36144, 36143+ 2 ccs to Mr.S.S.Mathivanan, Advocate SR Nos.35816, 35817.P.D. ORDER IN C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1583 & 1584 of 2002JRG(CO)SR/19.9.2005