N.Thangavel v. N.Kandaswami

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated: 6.6.2007Coram:The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN C.R.P.(NPD) No.509 and 510 of 2003CRP.NPD.No.509/2003N.Thangavel.. Petitioner (tenant)vs.N.Chellam.. Respondent (Landlord)CRP.NPD.No.510/2003N.Kandaswami.. Petitioner(tenant)vs.N.Chellam.. respondent(landlord)Revision Petitions filed against the order dated 26.12.2002passed in R.C.A.Nos.12 and 13 of 2001 on the file of the learnedappellate authority/sub-Judge, Ootacamund, confirming the ordersdated 17.4.2001 and 12.4.2001 passed in RCOP Nos.14 and 42 of1995 on the file of the rent controller, Kothagiri, respectively.For Petitioners: Mr.S.Kingston Jerold, for Mr.S.K.Rakhunathan.For Respondent: Mr.T.Girish, for Mr.Srinath Sridevan.COMMON ORDER These Revision Petitions have been filed against theorder dated 26.12.2002 passed in R.C.A.Nos.12 and 13 of 2001 onthe file of the learned appellate authority/sub-Judge,Ootacamund, confirming the orders dated 17.4.2001 and 12.4.2001passed in RCOP Nos.14 and 42 of 1995 on the file of the rentcontroller, Kothagiri, respectively. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The brief facts are as under:The tenants are the revision petitioners. The revisionpetitioners and the respondent landlady are the brothers andsister. The landlady/sister filed two suits in O.S.Nos.200/1986and 201/1986 against the revision petitioner inC.R.P.NPD.No.509/2003 and the revision petitioner inCRP.NPD.No.510/2003 for evicting them from the suit scheduleproperty on the ground that they were permitted by her to occupythe properties and she now requests the property for her ownoccupation. Both the brothers resisted the suits on the groundthat they are not permissive occupants but are tenants undertheir sister. The trial court dismissed the suits by holdingthat the revision petitioner in CRP.NPD.No.509/2003 is a tenanton a monthly rent of Rs.110/- and the revision petitioner inCRP.NPD.No.510/2003 is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.75/-.Thereafter the landlord-sister filed two RCOPs., in RCOPNo.14/1995 and 42/1995 on the ground that both the brothers areguilty of wilful default and she required both the premises whichare separated only by a door for her own occupation for running amess. The rent controller allowed RCOP No.14/1995 and RCOPNo.42/1995 on both the grounds and the appeals preferred by thebrothers in RCA Nos.12/2001 and 13/2001 were dismissed by theappellate authorities. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings ofboth the authorities below, the brothers have filed the above tworevision petitions.3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and thelearned counsel for the respondent. I have also perused thedocuments filed in support of their submissions.4.The rent controller in his order dated 17.4.2001 in RCOPNo.14/1995 and order dated 12.4.2001 in RCOP No.42/1995 foundthat after the landlord refused to receive the rents sent byMoney Order, the brothers did not take steps to deposit the rentbefore the court after following the procedure contemplatedunder Sec.8 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act. The rent controller disapproved the conduct of the brothersin occupying the premises for nine years without taking steps todeposit the rent and therefore the rent controller found thatthey are liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default.Insofar as the requirement of the landlady of both the premisessituated in the same building divided by the door, the rentcontroller found that her requirement is bona fide and allowedthe petitions on that ground also. The appellate authorityconcurred with the findings of the rent controller in entiretyafter re-evaluating the evidence and these concurrent findings https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ are being assailed before me.5.It is settled law that this court under its revisionaljurisdiction conferred on it under Sec.25 of the Act will notinterfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities belowunless the findings are unreasonable, illegal and perverse. Therevision under Sec.25 is even though much wider than the revisionconferred on this court under Sec.115 of CPC, the same is not anappeal enabling this court to re-appreciate and re-evaluate theevidence to come to a different conclusion unless the orders ofthe authorities below are so erroneous, unreasonable andperverse.6.In the present case, the rent controller in both theeviction petitions found that the brothers/tenants who areoccupying the properties for nine years without taking steps todeposit the rent when the rents sent by them by Money Order werereturned by their sister. Sec.8 of the Act has been enacted forthe purpose of enabling a tenant to deposit the rent before thecontroller when the landlady refused to accept the rent or evadesthe issue of a receipt for any payment of rent. For betterappreciation Sec.8 is extracted below:"8.Landlord liable to give receipt for rentor advance:-(1)Every landlord who receivesany payment towards rent or advance shallissue a receipt duly signed by him for theactual amount of rent or advance received byhim.(2)Where a landlord refuses to accept,or evades the receipt of, any rent lawfullypayable to him by a tenant in respect of anybuilding, the tenant may, by notice inwriting, require the landlord to specifywithin ten days from the date of receipt ofthe notice by him, a bank into which the rentmay be deposited by the tenant to the creditof the landlord:Provided that such bank shall be onesituated in the city, town or village inwhich the building is situated or if there isno such bank in such city, town or village,within (five kilometres) of the limitsthereof. Explanation:- It shall be open to thelandlord to specify from time to time by awritten notice to the tenant and subject tothe proviso aforesaid, a bank different fromthe one already specified by him under thissub-section. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (3)If the landlord specifies a bank asaforesaid, the tenant shall deposit the rentin the bank and shall continue to deposit init any rent which may subsequently become duein respect of the building.(4)If the landlord does not specify abank as aforesaid, the tenant shall remit therent to the landlord by Money Order, afterdeducting the money order commission.(5)If the landlord refuses to receivethe rent remitted by Money Order under sub-section(4), the tenant may deposit the rentbefore the Controller and continue to depositwith him any rent which may subsequentlybecome due in respect of the building."7.Now it has been repeatedly held by this court and theSupreme Court that Sec.8 is mandatory and the sub-clauses are tobe followed strictly before depositing the rent before thecontroller. Therefore the rent controller has correctly heldthat both the brothers are liable to be evicted on the ground ofwilful default as no steps have been taken by them to deposit therent under Sec.8(5) of the Act.8.The appellate authority in both the appeals has not onlyagreed with the findings of the rent controller in this aspectbut further held that Exs.B1 to B5 which are the Money Ordercoupons returned by the landlady do not disclose that the rentshave been sent for all the 12 months as there are only one couponin Ex.B1 and 5 coupons in Ex.B2, 5 coupons in E.B3, 6 coupons inEx.B4 and 6 coupons in Ex.B5. The appellate authority hasobserved that not even in one Exhibit there are 12 couponsevidencing regular monthly rental payments. In suchcircumstances, both the authorities have correctly come to theconclusion that the brothers/tenants are guilty of wilful defaultin the payment of monthly rent. No tenant can occupy the tenantedpremises without paying the rent or without depositing the rentbefore the rent controller if the same is refused. Therefore Ihave no hesitation in upholding the order of both the authoritiesbelow that both the tenants/brothers are liable to be evicted onthe ground of wilful default in the payment of monthly rentcommitted by them.9.Similarly both the authorities below have found that itdoes not require much steps for the landlord for starting a messin the tenanted premises. The only thing that is required isgetting permission from the local authority and the landladydeposed before the controller that she has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ applied for licence to run a mess and the local authorityinformed her that unless the tenants are vacated, the licencecould not be issued to her. Both the authorities below foundthat the claim of the landlady is bona fide and thebrothers/tenants were not able to let in any evidence to disprovethe same excepting to state that the place is inadequate forrunning the mess, she is a house-wife, her husband is employed ina bank, she has no previous experience and she is an uneducatedlady. These are all irrelevant consideration for deciding thebonafide of the landlady and therefore they have been rightlyrejected by the authorities below.10.In the result, I do not find any merits in both the CivilRevision Petitions and the same are dismissed. No costs. sksSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Subordinate Judge(Appellate Authority)2. The Rent Controller, Kottagiri3. The Record Keeper, VR Section,High Court, Madras+2ccs to Mr. S.K. Rakhunathan, Advocate sr no. 31973 and 31974+ one cc to Mr. Srinath Sridevan, Advocate sr no. 33250smv(co)nm(26.6.2007)C.R.P.(NPD)509 & 510/03.