Judgment · High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 07.08.2007CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMCRP.NPD.NO.67 OF 2006ANDCMP.NOs.532 and VCMP.No.270 of 2006 Ganesan Petitioner/ TenantVs.Mrs. Usha Rani ...Respondent. / LandlordThis Civil Revision Petition is filed u/s 25 of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control)Act 18 of 1960 asamended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1/1980. against the fair anddecretal order dated 13.7.2005 passed in RCA.No.535 of 1999 onthe file of the VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennaiconfirming the oder dated 26.3.1999 passed in RCOP.No.748 of1996 ont he file of X Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. For Petitioner :Mr.R.SanthanamFor Respondent: Mr.S.ParthasarathyO R D E RChallenge is made to the order of the Rent ControlAppellate Authority, VII Judge, Small Causes Court inRCA.No.535 of 1999 whereby the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, X Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai on theground of wilful default was affirmed.

The Court heard the learned counsel on either side.

The respondent/landlord filed an application foreviction on the ground of wilful default, denial of title andalso for own use and occupation stating that the petitionmentioned premises was purchased by him and he has become theowner of the property which is being occupied by the revisionpetitioner/tenant on the monthly rent of Rs.300/- and when hepurchased the property in September, 1994, he informed the sameto the revision petitioner/tenant that he purchased the property https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for the purpose of opening a new branch of the office and thepetitioner also agreed to pay the monthly rent of Rs.300/- from October, 1994 onwards to the respondent/landlord. But he neitherpaid the rent nor vacated the premises. Hence a notice wasissued on 7.8.1995 to the respondent terminating tenancy on theground of wilful default and despite the same, no rental paymentwas made. On the contrary, he gave a reply on 28.8.1995. Undersuch circumstances, there arose necessity for filinganfapplication for eviction on the above grounds.

The petitioner/tenant resisted the applicationcontending that the respondent herein is not the owner of theproperty, that there was no wilful default, since he has madeentire payment of rent to the previous owner and therespondent/landlord does not bonadife require the petitionpremises for owner's occupation.

On enquiry, the Rent Controller found that thepetitioner/tenant has committed wilful default and orderedeviction, though denied other grounds of denial of title andalso owner's use and occupation. Aggrieved tenant took it onappeal in RCA.No.535 of 1999 where the order of rent controlleron the ground of wilful default was affirmed and hence the CivilRevision petition at the instance of the tenant before this Court.

In support of the revision petitioner, learnedcounsel for the petitioner would submit that in the instantcase, it is true that the petitioner is the tenant making therent of Rs.200/-p.m. and the claim of the landlord is notcorrect. There is no dual relationship between the parties andrental was all along made to the original owner and he has beenreceiving the rent. Under such circumstances, the landlord hasnot proved the dual relationship and hence it should have beendismissed. Instead both the Courts below have erroneously foundotherwise and also recorded a finding that there was wilfuldefault in payment of rent and hence the order of both theauthorities have got to be set aside.

The Court heard the learned counsel for therespondent on the above contentions.

After hearing the learned counsel on either sideand after looking into the materials available on record inparticular the order under challenge, this Court is of theconsidered opinion that the order of lower authority has got tobe sustained. It is not in controversy that the revisionpetitioner is the tenant in respect of the premises in question. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The respondent/landlord filed a eviction petition stating thatthe said property belonged to him by way of purchase and thispetitioner is tenant under him and in the instant cast it wasbrought to the notice of the Court that by following theformalities, the property was purchased in September, 1994 fromthe previous landlord and a notice was issued by him on7.5.1992 to the revision petitioner stating that the propertywas sold by the first party in favour of the second party who isthe landlord before the lower court and even after theintimation, there was a reply from the tenant requesting to sendthe copy of the sale deed and thus he did not make any paymentof rental. It is pertinent to note that the property waspurchased in September, 1994, and the notice was issued to thetenant on 7.8.1995 and thereafter a petition was filed beforethe lower court for eviction on the ground of wilful defaultcommencing from October, 1994 to September, 1996 and hence hewas in arrears to the tune of Rs.4,800/- . Now, the onlycontention put forth by the petitioner before the authoritiesbelow and equally here also was that he has made entire paymentof rent to the previous owner. But, no material was placedbefore this Court and he has not even called a witness toexamine to prove the fact. Under such circumstances, it wasnothing but only a ruse invented to suit his defence. Underthe circumstances, the contention put forth by the the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that entire arrears of rents havebeen paid to the previous owner could not be countenanced andhence it must be rejected. Apart from that, once the propertyhas been sold to the present owner who is the respondent herein, there was no reason for the present petitioner/tenant to makeany payment of rental to the previous owner. Both theauthorities have rightly rejected the contention put forth bythe tenant and found that he has committed wilful default forthe said period and ordered eviction which has got to besustained.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitionerwould submit that the petitioner/tenant is running a groceryshop and he has to find out a suitable accommodation andsufficient time has got to be granted to him. The Court heardthe learned counsel on the above contentions. Taking intoconsideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is afit case where one year time from the date of receipt of a copyof this order has to be granted to him for vacating and handingover possession to the landlord. The learned counsel for thepetitioner is also directed to file an affidavit of undertakingwithin a period of two weeks herefrom to that effect. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/