G.A.Ponnusamy.. v. N.Santhanam ..

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 31.01.2008CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCRP.(NPD).No.1976 of 2003G.A.Ponnusamy.. Petitioner/Appellant/ Respondent Vs.N.Santhanam .. Respondent/Respondent/ PetitionerPrayer:- This revision petition has been preferred under Section 25 of theTamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act against the order dated21.08.2003 in RCA.NO.1 of 2002 passed by the learned Principal SubordinateJudge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Gobichettipalayam, confirmingthe order in RCOP.No.4 of 2000 dated District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam,(Rent Controller).For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.T.DuraisamyFor Respondent : Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, AdvocateORDERThis revision has been preferred by the tenant in RCOP.No.4 of2000 on the file of the Court of District Munsif (Rent Controller),Gobichettipalayam. The said RCOP was filed under Section 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2.According to the respondent/landlord, on the date of filing of theRCOP a sum of Rs.3,250/- is the arrears of rent due for the months ofMarch, April and May - 2000. According to the tenant he had carried outrepairs in the building to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and that he hadadjusted the rent towards maintenance charges borne by him for carryingout the repair works of the said building in the year 1992. The landlordhas required the building for personal occupation ie. for his adopted sonto conduct a business in the building. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.Before the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner has examinedhimself as P.W.1 and exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 and the respondent hasexamined as R.W.1 and Ex.R.1 was marked. After going through the evidenceboth oral and documentary the learned Rent Controller has come to theconclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for andaccordingly allowed the application giving a months time to the respondentto vacate and handover the vacant possession. Aggrieved by the findingsof the learned Rent Controller, the tenant/revision petitioner haspreferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority inRCA.No.1 of 2002. The Rent Control Appellate Authority finding nomaterial for interfering with the findings of the learned Rant Controllerhas dismissed the appeal granting one month further time for vacating andhanding over the vacant possession of the petition scheduled building.Aggrieved by the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority thepresent revision has been preferred by the tenant.4.Heard the learned senior counsel Mr.S.V.Jayaraman appearing for therevision petitioner and the learned counsel Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy appearingfor the respondent and considered their respective submissions.5.The learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitionerwould contend that the petition under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act isnot maintainable on the ground that the petitioner requires the petitionschedule premises for the use of his adopted son, but the adoptationitself is not valid under law. Whether the adoptation is valid or not isnot the point to be considered in a rent control proceedings. Whether theimpugned building is required for the personal occupation of thepetitioner or not alone is to be gone into in a rent control proceedings.Both the Courts below have concurrently held that apart from the impugnedbuilding the landlord is not owning any other non-residential building ofhis own and that the petitioner's adopted son required the impugnedbuilding for starting his business. It is the admitted fact that only atthe time of admission of his CRP in the year 2003 as per the direction ofthis Court the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.3,750/- was deposited bythe revision petitioner to the credit of RCOP.No.4 of 2000. The standtaken by the tenant that he had spent Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance ofthe building right from the year 1992 has not been substantiated by anydocumentary evidence as rightly observed by the Courts below. It issettled law that if the tenant committed any default in payment of renteven during the pendency of RCOP that is to be construed as willfuldefault. In this case even till the filing of the revision petition beforethis Court the revision petitioner has not paid the rent amounting toRs.3,250/-, will derive us to an unassailable conclusion that the revisionpetitioner has committed willful default in payment of rent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.The ratio decidendi relied on by the learned senior counselappearing for the revision petitioner in 2002(1) CTC 487 (JJ.Lal Pvt. Ltd.and others Vs. M.R.Murali and another), will not be applicable to thepresent facts of the case because in the said case it was proved by thetenant that the landlord himself had stated that he will be collecting therent once in two months and that no notice was issued by the landlord tothe tenant demanding the arrears of rent and that non-payment of rent inrespect of the one premises for one month and another premises for twomonths, held by the Honourable Apex Court as connot be considered as awillful default. But that is not the case on hand. Even in the notice -Ex.P.1 the landlord has clearly stated that the tenant is continuouslydefaulted in payment of rent i.e, the rent due for the period from1.8.1990 to 29.2.2000, which amounting to Rs.8,250/-. But the tenant haspaid only Rs.2,000/- on 20.4.1999 and Rs.3,000/- on 4.9.1999 andthereafter he has committed default in payment of arrears of rent ofRs.3,250/- Even after the said notice, the tenant has not chosen to paythe rent even during the pendency of neither RCOP nor RCA. But the tenanthas paid the said arrears of rent only after the direction given by thisCourt in this CRP. The only defence taken in the reply notice - Ex.P.1 isthat the revision petitioner/tenant had spent Rs.15,000/- towards repaircharges. But as I have already stated that there is absolutely nomaterial placed before the learned Rent Controller to show that the tenanthad spent Rs.15,000/- towards repairing the building. Further, againstthe concurrent findings of the Courts below this Court exercising therevisional jurisdiction cannot go into the facts of the case unless it isshown that the findings of the Courts below is perverse in nature and thefindings have been arrived at without any evidence. Further, absolutelythere is no material placed before this Court to show that the Courtsbelow have rendered a perverse finding. Under such circumstance, I do notfind any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Rent ControlAppellate Authority in RCA.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the PrincipalSubordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam.7. In fine, the Revision is dismissed confirming the findings of thelearned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.1 of 2002 on the fileof the Principal Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam. No costs. Timefor vacating and handing over vacant possession to the landlord is twomonths from this date. Letter of undertaking to be filed within one week.ssvSd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To,1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority) Gobichettipalayam.2.The District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam.(Rent Controller)3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras+1 cc to Mr.R.T.Doraisamy, Advocate Sr.No.4585.+1 cc to Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, Advocate Sr.No.4572.ASM(CO)DCP/1.2CRP.(NPD).No.1976 of 2003