CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. Vasanthi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED ; 15-6-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMC.R.P.NPD Nos.658 and 659 of 2006andCMP No.5289 of 2006K.Sridharan.. Petitioner inboth revisions/Appellant/RespondentvsVasanthi.. Respondent in both revisions/Respondent/PetitionerCivil revision petitions filed under Sec.25 of the TamilNadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 against thefair and decreetal order dated 15.2.2006 made in R.C.A.Nos.1340and 1361 of 2003 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of SmallCauses, Chennai confirming the fair and decreetal order dated19.9.2003 passed by the XIII Small Causes Court in RCOPNos.2163/2002 and 42/2003.respectivelyFor Petitioner: Mr.M.KamalanathanFor Respondent: Mr.P.ChandrasekarORDERThis order shall govern the above two revisions filed atthe instance of the tenant-revision petitioner. 2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitionerand also for the respondent.3.The respondent-landlady filed RCOP No.2163/2002 for anorder of eviction on the grounds of willful default andpersonal occupation alleging that there was a willful defaultin payment of rental from January 1997 onwards till the date ofthe application; and that the property is also required forpersonal occupation of the landlady. While the matter stoodthus, the tenant filed the other RCOP No.42/2003 under Sec.8(5)of the Act for making deposit of the rental. On enquiry, theRent Controller allowed the RCOP filed by the landladyaccepting the ground of willful default, though declined toaccept the other ground, and also dismissed the RCOP filed bythe tenant. Challenging the said orders, the tenant took twoRCAs referred to above, in RCA Nos.1340 and 1361 of 2003respectively. Both the RCAs were taken up for enquiry by theVII Judge, Court of Small Causes. Both ended in dismissal.Aggrieved over the same, these revisions have been broughtforth by the tenant. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.After hearing both sides, the following facts are foundadmitted. Originally, the revision petitioner-tenant took theproperty on lease in the year 1976 from the husband of thelandlady and continued to be a tenant by making originally apayment of monthly rental of Rs.35/-, and it was increased toRs.350/-. Thereafter, it was raised to Rs.400/- after thedemise of the original landlord. The property came to thehands of the wife, the present landlady. At this juncture, thelandlady stating that there was a rental arrears from January1997 till the filing of the application before the RentController, and also it is required for personal occupation,filed the said petition. The defence plea was that thelandlady was receiving rental all along the period, but issuedreceipts till January 1997; that thereafter, no receipts wereissued, though rental was paid and received; that under thecircumstances, the tenant issued a notice and filed theapplication for depositing the rental into Court, and hence,there was no rental arrears at all; that the ground of personaloccupation put forth, was nothing but lack of bonafide; thatit was intended only to evict the petitioner-tenant, and underthe circumstances, the RCOP filed by the landlady, was to bedismissed, and he should be permitted to deposit the rental.The Rent Controller was not prepared to accept the defence pleaand allowed the application for eviction on the ground ofwillful default. Consequently, the application filed by thetenant for deposit of rental, was dismissed. Both the RCAsfiled by the tenant, were also dismissed by the appellateforum. Hence, these revisions before this Court.5.Advancing the arguments on behalf of the petitioner, thelearned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, it is anadmitted fact that he has been a tenant from 1976 onwards underthe husband of the present landlady; that till the lifetime ofthe original landlord, the rental was paid; that it was raisedto Rs.400/- from January 1997 onwards; that from the time ofthe death of the original landlord, payments were made to thepresent landlady; that she was in the habit of issuingreceipts; that from January 1997, she did not give receipt;that under the circumstances, the tenant was constrained tofile the application for deposit of the rental before theCourt; and that the filing of the application under Sec.8(5) ofthe Act would reveal that when the receipt was not issued forpayment of rental, the application was filed. Added furtherthe learned Counsel that in the year 2003, a notice was servedby the Corporation of Madras for payment of tax, since thepayment of tax was not paid by the landlady, and under thecircumstances, the tenant has made the payment of tax to theCorporation which has got to be adjusted, and hence, therevision petitions have got to be allowed accepting the case ofthe tenant that there was no default in payment of rental, muchless willful default. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the respondenton the above contentions. 7.After careful consideration of the rival submissionsmade, this Court is of the considered opinion that both therevisions require an order of dismissal. Admittedly, therevision petitioner-tenant is in the property from 1976. It isalso his admitted case that all along the period, receipts wereissued by the husband of the landlady, who was the originallandlord, and after his death, the landlady was issuingreceipts upto January 1997. According to him, he was makingpayment of rental for the periods 1998, 1999 and 2000 i.e., formore than 2 or 3 years without any receipt whatsoever. Whilethe original landlord was giving receipts and thereafter, thepresent landlady was also issuing receipts for the said period,there was no reason for the tenant to tender or make payment ofrental without receipt, that too for a few years. Hence, thecase of the tenant that he made payment of rental during thatperiod cannot be accepted in the absence of any proof to thateffect. It is well settled proposition of law that in a givencase of eviction on the ground of willful default, thecontention put forth by the tenant that he used to make lumpsum payment or used to make payment without receipt whatsoever,has got to be discountenanced. In the absence of proof, suchcontention cannot be accepted. 8.In the instant case, the crowning circumstance againstthe petitioner-tenant is that the RCOP proceedings wereinitiated in the year 2002, and thereafter, the RCAs were alsopending, one from the eviction application and the other fromapplication for depositing rental. While the matter stoodthus, the tenant comes forward to state that there wascompulsion from the Corporation of Madras for payment of tax,and under the circumstances, he directly made payment of tax tothe Corporation. Thus, it would be indicative of the fact thatthe tenant has complicated the matter. Though there was anotice served upon the tenant, under the circumstances, he wasexpected to get permission from the Court where the proceedingswere pending. Without doing so, he has directly made payment,that too in a case where he has filed an application fordeposit of rental. All would go to show that here is a case ofnot only default, but also willful default noticed. Under thecircumstances, both the authorities below were perfectlycorrect in rejecting the case of the tenant and passing anorder of eviction. Hence, it has got to be sustained.Consequently, the application filed by the tenant fordeposit of rental can only come to an end by a dismissal order.9.In the result, both these civil revision petitions aredismissed. It is brought to the notice of the Court that thetenant is a person who is occupying the premises for nearly 30years. Under the circumstances, reasonable time has got to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ given. Accordingly, 9 (nine) months’ time is granted forvacating and handing over possession to the landlady. Nocosts. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed.Nsv/Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo:1.The VII Judge Court of Small Causes, Chennai.2.The XIII Judge Court of Small Causes Chennai.3. The RegistrarCourt of Small CausesChennai+2cc to Mr. P. Chandrasekar, Advocate sr no. 35101 and 35102+2cc to Mr. M. Kamalanathan, Advocate sr no. 35152 and 35153NG(CO)NM(07.08.07)CRP NPD Nos.658 and659 of 2006