Dismissed

Kasi Ammal v. S.v.Natesa Thevar

Madras HC7 Apr 2014CRP/777/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras dismissed two civil revision petitions filed by tenants under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 against orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The court upheld the finding that the tenants had wilfully defaulted in rent payments despite a legal notice, confirming their eviction and granting them three months to vacate t

What did the court decide?

Eviction order confirmed; tenants directed to vacate the property within three months.

Kasi Ammal Vs S.v.Natesa Thevar — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 07.04.2014

¶3

Coram

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH

¶5

C.R.P.Nos.777 and 778 of 2009

¶6

Kasi Ammal

¶7

Seenivasan

¶8

Sivakami

¶9

Mageswari 5. Jothi ... Petitioners in both CRPs/Respondents 1 to 5 Vs. L.V.Natesa Thevar ... Respondent in both CRPs/Appellant

¶10

Prayers in both Civil Revision Petitions:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 against the fair and decreetal orders dated 27.11.2008 passed in Rent Control Appeal Nos.1 and 2 of 2006 on the file of Subordinate Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Cheyyar in reversing the fair and decreetal orders dated 25.02.2005 passed in RCOP Nos.5 and 6 of 1993 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court (Rent Controller), Cheyyar.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Mani For Respondent : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan C O M M O N O R D E R

¶12

The revision petitioners/tenant filed these two Civil Revision Petitions against the fair and decreetal orders dated 27.11.2008 passed in Rent Control Appeal Nos.1 and 2 of 2006 on the file of Subordinate Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Cheyyar in reversing the fair and decreetal orders dated 25.02.2005 passed in RCOP Nos.5 and 6 of 1993 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court (Rent Controller), Cheyyar.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

¶14

For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in RCOP No.5 of 1993 referred as respondent and petitioner in RCOP No.6 of 1993 is referred as revision petitioners hereafter.

¶15

The respondent/landlord filed RCOP No.5 of 1993, in which, it is stated that the revision petitioners were tenants and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the rent was increased periodically from Rs.40/- to Rs.200/-. But,

¶16

the revision petitioners have not paid the rent from the month of May 1992. Therefore, the respondent issued a legal notice on 07.07.1993 to the revision petitioners, but, the revision petitioners have sent a reply on 10.07.1993, in which, it is stated that the monthly rent is only Rs.100/- and also stated that no arrears of rent and hence, filed the above said RCOP No.5 of 1993 to evict the revision petitioner under Section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

¶17

The revision petitioners filed RCOP No.6 of 1993, in which, it is admitted that the revision petitioners are tenant under the respondent, but it is denied that the monthly rent is Rs.200/- but it is only Rs.100/- per month. It is further stated that since the respondent refused to receive the rent for the month of Nov'1993, the revision petitioner sent money order on 16.12.1993. But, the above said money order was refused by the respondent and therefore, filed the petition to permit the revision petitioners to deposit monthly rent Rs.100/- before Court.

¶18

The trial court jointly tried on both the RCOPs and finally held that both the respondent and the revision petitioners failed to prove the monthly rent of Rs.40/- or Rs.200/- and therefore, dismissed both the RCOP Nos. 5 and 6 of 1993.

¶19

Aggrieved over the common order passed by the Rent Controller, both sides(i.e)the revision petitioners and the respondent preferred the two Rent Control Appeals before Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Appellate Authority separately heard both the appeals in Rent Control Appeal Nos.1 and 2 of 2006 and passed separate orders on 27.11.2008. The Appellate Authority has discussed in detail about the evidence, and come to the conclusion that admittedly the revision petitioners have not paid rent even after issuing legal notice, but seeking permission to deposit rent only from Nov'1993 and the respondent herein has proved the fact that the revision petitioners have wilfully defaulted in payment of rent and therefore, allowed the Rent Control Appeal filed by the respondent and dismissed the Rent Control Appeal filed by the revision petitioners.

¶20

Aggrieved over the above said findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in both the Rent Control Appeals, the revision petitioners have preferred these two Civil Revision Petitions namely C.R.P.Nos.777 and 778 of 2009.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the respondent has miserably failed to prove the contentions that the monthly rent is Rs.200/- and also not proved the arrears of rent as alleged by the respondent and the Rent Control Appellate Authority has not properly considered the above said contentions of the revision petitioners and therefore prayed for to set aside the above said order.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the Appellate Authority has discussed all the documents adduced on either side and further considered the admitted facts that even after issuing legal notice, the revision petitioners have not deposited or paid arrears of rent and therefore, Rent Control Appellate Authority has correctly held that the respondent is entitled to evict the revision petitioners on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent.

¶24

As rightly discussed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the revision petitioners have not produced any documents to prove that even after issuing legal notice, they have paid rent regularly or deposit the rent after obtaining permission from Court immediately. The revision petitioners have filed petition to permit the revision petitioners to deposit the rent from Nov'1993 onwards. Further, Rent Control Appellate Authority has discussed about the oral admission of RW1 that the arrears of rent is 138 months. Admittedly, even after legal notice issued on 07.07.1993, the revision petitioners paid the rent only from November 1993. In the above circumstances, the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority regarding wilful default is not perverse finding or illegal. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the above said orders and hence, both the Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶25

In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed and confirmed the orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in Rent Control Appeal Nos.1 and 2 of 2006. No order as to costs. Three months time given to vacate the property. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.

¶26

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶27

//True Copy//

¶28

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

ssn To 1. The Subordinate Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Cheyyar.

¶30

2.The Principal District Munsif Court (Rent Controller), Cheyyar.

¶31

1 cc to M/s.P.Mani,Advocate, SR.No.16850

¶32

C.R.P.Nos.777 and 778 of 2009

¶33

UG(CO)PMK..5.6.2014

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Kasi Ammal v. S.v.Natesa Thevar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasi Ammal v. S.v.Natesa Thevar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahalakshmi Vs Noorinisha Begum

Arulmighu Aathimooleswarar Vs Gurumoorthy

Seetharaman Vs Kumar @ Krishna Iyer

K.C.Bhaskar Vs R.Siva

Nancy Jeevadhas Vs a.Rajendhar

M.Sadagopan, Vs Shanmuga Goundar