Dismissed

S.Natarajan v. P.Sukumar

Madras HC22 Oct 2021CRP/4625/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an eviction order in a rent control case. The court held that the tenant committed wilful default by not paying rent after the sale of premises and that the landlord bona fide required the premises for his business.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; eviction order confirmed; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

S.Natarajan Vs P.Sukumar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22.10.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD)No.4625 of 2015
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2015
S.Natarajan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.P.Sukumar
2.N.Jamunarani .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu

¶8

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1960, against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.02.2015 made in R.C.A.No.19 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Salem (Rent Control Appellate Authority), confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 22.09.2014 made in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District

¶9

Munsif, Salem (Rent Controller).

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶11

1/26

¶12

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.T.T.Ravichandran

¶14

For Respondents : Mr.T.Murugamanickam (For R1) Senior Counsel for M/s.A.Murughan

¶15

Mr.M.Balasubramanian (For R2)

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

(The matter is heard through 'video conferencing/hybrid mode')

¶18

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.02.2015 made in R.C.A.No.19 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Salem (Rent Control Appellate Authority), confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 22.09.2014 made in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem (Rent Controller).

¶19

2.The petitioner is 1^st respondent in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem (Rent Controller). The 1^st respondent filed the said R.C.O.P. for eviction of the petitioner and 2^nd

¶20

respondent/wife of the petitioner, on the ground of wilful default and

¶21

2/26

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶23

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶24

owner's occupation. According to the 1^st respondent, originally, one Karuppanna Pillai was owner of petition premises. He leased out the petition premises to the petitioner for non-residential purposes. The petitioner and 2^nd respondent were carrying on Gunny Bag business. The said Karuppanna Pillai sold the petition property by a deed of sale dated 06.08.1999 to the 1^st respondent. According to the 1^st respondent, he met the petitioner and 2^nd respondent in August, 1999 itself and informed them about the purchase of petition premises by the 1^st respondent and requested them to vacate the petition premises and till that time, to pay the rent to the 1^st respondent. The 2^nd respondent filed suit in O.S.No.368 of 1999, for specific performance of agreement of sale and for permanent injunction, contending that the said Karuppanna Pillai entered into an agreement of sale. After contest, the said suit was dismissed on merits by the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2006, with regard to relief of

¶25

specific performance and refund of advance amount of Rs.1,40,000/only was ordered. The petitioner has not paid monthly rent of Rs.700/- to the 1^st respondent from the date of purchase i.e., on 06.08.1999, even after dismissal of First Appeal by the Principal District Judge, Salem in

¶26

3/26

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶28

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶29

A.S.No.74 of 2006 on 25.06.2007 and dismissal of Second Appeal in S.A.No.1260 of 2007 by this Court on 26.08.2011.The petitioner deliberately committed wilful default in payment of rent.

¶30

2(i) Further, the 1^st respondent, along with his mother and brother

¶31

viz., Mohanraj, was carrying on Silver Articles business in a rented building at D.No.172, Shevapet Main Road Shevapet, Salem -2 and the 1^st respondent is not owning any non-residential building in Salem or elsewhere. The petition premises is required for his own Silver Articles business. In such circumstances, the 1^st respondent issued notice dated 13.01.2012 to the petitioner and 2^nd respondent, through his Advocate. The 2^nd respondent alone sent a reply dated 03.02.2012. The petitioner did not send any reply or vacate the petition premises. Hence, the 1^st respondent filed the said R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2012, for eviction of the petitioner and 2^nd respondent on the ground of wilful default and owner's occupation.

¶32

3.The petitioner filed counter statement, which was adopted by the

¶33

4/26

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶35

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶36

2^nd respondent. The petitioner has denied that they committed wilful default in payment of rent. The petitioner stated in the counter statement that he was paying the rent to Karuppanna Pillai, pending suit and subsequently to his sons. The Second Appeal filed by the 2^nd respondent was dismissed by this Court only on 26.08.2011. Till such dismissal, there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the 1^st respondent and petitioner. The 2^nd respondent agreed to purchase the petition premises from Karuppanna Pillai and entered into an agreement. She was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract, but the sons of the Karuppanna Pillai coerced Karuppanna Pillai to execute the sale deed in favour of the 1^st respondent. The petitioner is running Gunny Bag business at petition premises in Leigh Bazaar, Salem. In that place only, the grains and Gunny Bag business is carried on. The said place and the petition premises are not suitable for carrying on Silver Articles business.

¶37

The 1^st respondent is carrying on Silvery Articles business in D.No.172, Shevapet Main Road, Salem – 2. The 1^st respondent has made allegation

¶38

that he requires petition premises for his Silver Articles business, only with a view to evict the petitioner by hook and crook method and prayed

¶39

5/26

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶41

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶42

for dismissal of R.C.O.P.

¶43

4.The learned Rent Controller, considering the pleadings, oral and

¶44

documentary evidence, allowed R.C.O.P., directing the petitioner and 2^nd respondent to vacate the petition premises and handover the vacant

¶45

possession to the 1^st respondent within a period of two months from the

¶46

date of that order.

¶47

5.Against the said order dated 22.09.2014 made in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2012, the petitioner and 2^nd respondent filed R.C.A.No.19 of 2014.

¶48

The learned Appellate Authority, considering the order of the learned Rent Controller and grounds of appeal, dismissed the R.C.A, by the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2015.

¶49

6.Against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority dated 24.02.2015 made in R.C.A.No.19 of 2014 and order of the learned Rent Controller dated 22.09.2014 made in R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2012, the petitioner has come out with the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶50

6/26

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶52

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶53

7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that

¶54

Courts below failed to consider that 1^st respondent did not comply with

¶55

the ingredients of Section 10 (2)(a)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter, referred to as

¶56

'the Act'). The 1^st respondent has not given any details of default, much less wilful default. The 1^st respondent has not told his bonafide requirement as contemplated under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Therefore, the Courts below ought not to have entertained the petition filed by the 1^st respondent for eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement for own use. The 1^st respondent failed to prove that he does

¶57

not own any non-residential building within Salem Corporation limit, except marking fabricating documents as Exs.P12 and P13. Silver Articles business cannot be done in the locality of Leigh Bazaar, where

¶58

the petition premises is situated. The Courts below failed to see that the 1^st respondent did not prove that Ex.P12 is used for non-residential purpose. The Courts below failed to see the 2^nd respondent, wife of the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale dated 12.05.1996 with the

¶59

7/26

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶61

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶62

landlord, to purchase the petition premises and paid Rs.1,40,000/- as advance. In view of the said agreement, title of the 2^nd respondent is bonafide. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as advance to the landlord on 01.01.1990 and paid property tax with consent of original

¶63

landlord and spent considerable amount for developing the petition premises. The said amount ought to have been adjusted for the rent due from 06.02.1999. Hence, the order of eviction cannot be sustained. Till the disposal of the suit for specific performance and the Second Appeal in S.A.No.1260 of 2007, the question of payment of rent does not arise and the 1^st respondent cannot be termed as a wilful defaulter. As per the judgment in O.S.No.368 of 1999, the suit was not dismissed in its entirety, but the relief of specific performance alone was dismissed and the defendants 2 to 9 therein were directed to refund Rs.1,40,000/-, paid

¶64

as advance by the 2^nd respondent, together with interest. The said amount ought to have been adjusted for rent, which is Rs.8,400/- per year, from and out of the said amount or from the interest payable on Rs.1,40,000/-, instead of ordering eviction. The sale deed under which the 1^st

¶65

8/26

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶67

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶68

respondent claims title is forged one and therefore, the 1^st respondent cannot maintain the petition for eviction. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the 1^st respondent issued notice dated 13.01.2012, but filed R.C.O.P. on 29.02.2012, within two months, violating the provisions, as contemplated by the Act and therefore, there

¶69

is no default much less wilful default.

¶70

8.In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for

¶71

the petitioner relied on the following judgments:

¶72

(i) 1996 AIR (SC) 1214 [K.Narasimha Rao Vs. T.M.Nasimuddin

¶73

Ahmed]:

¶74

“7.................. The character or the excess amount

¶75

undoubtedly is that it is the tenant's money in the hands of the landlord for return to the tenant or for adjustment towards the dues of the tenant's at the tenant's option. Any other stipulation in contravention to it has no legal effect being null and void.

¶76

13. In the present case, excluding from consideration the

¶77

tenant's claim for adjustment of the amount of Rs.1000/- spent on repairs and the amount of Rs.750/- sent by demand draft on receipt of the notice, the amount of Rs.2850/- with the landlord

¶78

9/26

¶79

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶80

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶81

as the excess amount of advance paid by the tenant to the landlord, was alone sufficient to negative the landlord's claim of ejectment. The arrears of rent from July to November 1990 was only Rs.750/- , while the excess amount of advance was Rs.2850/-, far in excess of the arrears. The landlord was bound to immediately refund that excess amount even before the arrears accrued, and he not having made the refund was bound to adjust it towards the rent due from the tenant. On these facts, the tenant could certainly not be held to be a willful defaulter in the payment of rent. The High Court is, therefore, right in deciding against the landlord.”

¶82

(ii) ( 2000) 9 SCC 339 [R.Kanthimathi and another Vs. Beatrice Xavier]:

¶83

“ 6. Any jural relationship between two persons could be created through agreement and similarly could be changed through agreement subject to the limitations under the law. Earlier when appellants were inducted into tenancy it only means both agreed that their relations is to be that of a landlord and tenant. Later when landlord decides to sell this property to the tenant and tenant agreed by entering into agreement they by their positive act changed their relationship as purchaser and seller. When seller-landlord accepts sum he actually acts under this agreement. This acceptance preceded by agreement of sale changes their relationship. This is how they intended. Once accepting such a change then their relationship of landlord tenant ceases.”

¶84

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶85

10/26

¶86

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶87

(iii) ( 2003) 10 SCC 610 [P.M.Punnoose Vs. K.M.Munneruddin

¶88

and another] :

¶89

“ 13. The explanation appended to sub-Section (2) of section 10 if the Act enacts a rule of evidence. After the issuance of two month's notice claiming the rent, the default by tenant shall be construed as willful raising a presumption in that regard and it will be for the tenant to show availability of sufficient cause or circumstances beyond his control to escape from the consequence of default. The landlord is not prevented from initiating proceedings for eviction on the ground of default under Section 10(2) (1) of the Act, without serving a notice under the Explanation but in that case it will be for the landlord to make out a case of wilful default by tenant failing which the Controller may exercise his discretion under the proviso giving the tenant a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days for payment or tender.

¶90

16. There appears to be a bona-fide dispute as to the quantum of arrears, that is, as to what was the exact amount of rent paid by the tenant appellant to the landlord-respondents and consequent upon which payment the liability for how many number of months came to be extinguished. The facts found indicate the tenant-appellant remitting the amount of rent by money orders before and after and even during the pendency of the proceedings and some of the money orders having been refused by the landlord - respondents. The present one is a fit

¶91

11/26

¶92

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶93

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶94

case where the Controller should have exercised his power under proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 10 of the Act by passing an order thereunder and giving the tenants-appellant a reasonable time, not exceeding 15 days, to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord upto the date of such payments of rent. If such order was complied with by the appellant-tenant, then the application for eviction should have been rejected. The learned Controller has erred in not passing that order.”

¶95

(iv) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgment reported in ( 2000) 1 SCC 451 [C.Chandramohan Vs. Sengottaiyan (dead), rep. By legal heirs and others] and submitted that the 1^st respondent did not specify the amount of default and therefore, the petition is not maintainable.

¶96

9.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent contended that original owner did not inform the 1^st respondent about pendency of the suit, while selling the petition premises to the 1^st respondent. After decree in O.S.No.368 of 1999, directing the refund of advance amount paid by the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent deposited the said amount of Rs.1,40,000/- to the credit of the suit, even though the

¶97

12/26

¶98

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶99

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶100

1^st respondent has paid entire sale consideration to the defendants 2 to 8 in O.S.No.368 of 1999. The 2^nd respondent could have taken the amount from the Court deposit. The petitioner ought to have verified whether the 1^st respondent has deposited the advance amount as directed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.368 of 1999. The 1^st respondent informed the petitioner

¶101

as well as 2^nd respondent about his purchase in August, 1999 itself and called upon them to vacate and handover the petition premises and pay

¶102

the rent to him till they vacate the petition premises. The petitioner has stated that he was regularly paying the rent to Karuppanna Pillai and subsequently to his sons, the defendants 2 to 8 in O.S.No.368 of 1999. Contrary to the said statement, the petitioner has come out with a new case that the 2^nd respondent, being an agreement holder, need not pay the rent. Further, the petitioner, now admitting non-payment of rent, claimed that the 1^st respondent ought to have adjusted all the rent payable from

¶103

and out of advance amount directed to be refunded to the 2^nd respondent. These contentions clearly show that the petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent. The 1^st respondent has proved that he is carrying on Silver Articles business in partnership in a rented building.

¶104

13/26

¶105

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶106

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶107

The 1^st respondent has stated that he does not own any non-residential building in Salem city or anywhere else. The petitioner failed to prove that the 1^st respondent is owning a non-residential building in Salem city or anywhere else. It is for the landlord to chose the premises to carry on his business and tenant cannot dictate terms that said premises is not convenient to carry on Silver Article business of 1^st respondent/landlord. The Courts below have considered all the materials placed before it and ordered eviction and there is no reason to interfere with the same and

¶108

prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.

¶109

10.In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent relied on the following judgments:

¶110

(i) VOL 64 LW 396 [Lingambhotla Vs. Sub Judge, Vijayawada]:

¶111

“...................It may be that, the landlord was not insisting on regular payments & was accepting without protest arrears of rent which had accumulated ; but when he choose a to apply Under Section 7 of the Act, he will be entitled to an order of eviction if he can prove that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent by the last day of the month nest following that for which the rent is payable. It is not suggested that the tenancy

¶112

14/26

¶113

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶114

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶115

was not a monthly tenancy; therefore, the rent for each month was payable before the last day of the month next following. Both the Rent Controller & the Appellate Tribunal have found that there was default in payment of rent according to this provision. They ought to have, therefore, passed an order of eviction. The orders of the Bent Controller & the Appellate Tribunal are quashed & there will be an order for eviction in favour of the petitioner.”

¶116

(ii) 2018 (2) MWN (Civil) 528 [Deepak Parekh Vs. Uma

¶117

Maheswari]:

¶118

“ 20 ..............The contention of the petitioners that there was no order directing the petitioners to pay arrears of rent by this Court and the petitioners voluntarily paid the rent, is not correct. When M.P.Nos.1 of 2014 in Civil Revision Petition Nos.4877, 4879 and 4881 of 2014 for stay were taken up for hearing on 18.12.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioners tendered three demand drafts. This Court by order dated 18.12.2014 directed the petitioners to pay arrears if any within two weeks. The petitioners have not complied with the said order within time granted by this Court. However, from the materials on record, it is seen that the petitioners have not paid monthly rent even during pendency of the R.C.As. as well as pendency of the Civil Revision Petitions............

¶119

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶120

15/26

¶121

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶122

22. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Appellate Authority ought to have granted time for payment of arrears of rent is untenable. From the beginning, the petitioners have not paid rent in spite of the demands made by the respondents as well as the order of the learned Rent Controller. In view of the said attitude, the learned Appellate Authority has rightly dismissed the appeals without granting time. The petitioners have failed to comply with the order of the learned Rent Controller directing them to pay the arrears of rent and therefore, the learned Rent Controller stopped the proceedings and ordered eviction of the respondents and the said order is valid and as per law, which is rightly confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. There is no error in the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2014 passed by the learned Appellate Authority.”

¶123

(iii) 2012 (6) CTC 557 [Sulochana Vs. Pangajam]:

¶124

“ 10. Further, it is not her case that she was paying the rent continuously to Mr.Ravi even after receipt of notice. As stated supra, from September 1997, she has not paid the rent either to the erstwhile landlord viz., Mr.Ravi or to the respondents herein and she was keeping the rent with herself and filed R.C.O.P.No.44 of 1999 only in the month of February 1999, after the respondents filed petition for eviction in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1998. Further, even during the pendency of the eviction petition filed by the landlord and even during the pendency of

¶125

16/26

¶126

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶127

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶128

the application filed by the tenant to deposit the rent, she was not regular in depositing the rent in court and she was depositing the rent only in lumpsum and that was considered by both the courts below and it was held that the default is wilful and on that ground, eviction was ordered. As a matter of fact, the lower appellate court elaborately discussed the conduct of the revision petitioner in committing default in payment of rent to arrive at a conclusion that the default is nothing but wilful and the tenant was not regular in depositing the rent before the court below.

¶129

11. In the judgment reported in 1999 (3) MLJ 691, this court has held that the default committed by the tenant even after issuance of notice is deemed to be wilful default. In the judgment in PRAMOD WILSON,T. v. DR.HARI RAMESH (1999 (I) CTC 372), it has been held that the deposit of arrears of rent pursuant to the order passed by the Rent Controller will not erase the wilful default committed by the tenant. In the judgment reported in (2008) 1 MLJ 963 it has been held that there is no need to attorn the tenancy and when the landlords are the owners of the building and the tenant admitted the tenancy, even though there is no attornment, the tenant will have to pay rent and failure on the part of the tenant to pay the rent will amount to wilful default. In that judgment, the learned Judge relied upon the judgment in MOHAR SINGH (DEAD BY L.Rs. v. DEVI CHARAN AND OTHERS (AIR 1988 SC 1365) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that as per the provisions of section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, the assignee of a

¶130

17/26

¶131

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶132

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶133

part of the reversion is entitled to exercise all the rights of the landlord in respect of the portion of which, reversion was so assigned and there is no need for a consensual attornment and the attornment is brought about by operation of law. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that there was no attornment of tenancy and therefore, there is no landlord and tenancy relationship cannot be accepted.”

¶134

11.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

¶135

12.From the materials on record, it is seen that the petition premises was originally owned by Karuppanna Pillai. The petitioner was

¶136

tenant under the said Karuppanna Pillai on monthly rent, carrying on

¶137

Gunny Bag business. The 1^st respondent purchased the property from Karuppanna Pillai, by the deed of sale dated 06.08.1999. The said sale deed is marked as Ex.P1, before the learned Rent Controller. According

¶138

to the 1^st respondent, he met the petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent in

¶139

18/26

¶140

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶141

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶142

the month of August, 1999 itself and informed about his purchase and asked them to vacate the petition premises, deliver the vacant possession and pay the rent to him, till they vacate the petition premises. According to the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent, who is wife of the petitioner, was an agreement holder with Karuppanna Pillai to purchase the petition premises. She filed O.S.No.368 of 1999 for specific performance against

¶143

the said Karuppanna Pillai and 8 others. The 1^st respondent is 9^th defendant in the said suit. This reveals that the petitioner knew about the purchase of the petition premises by the 1^st respondent. The suit filed by the 2^nd respondent for specific performance was dismissed, but the Trial Court directed the defendants 2 to 9 to deposit the advance amount of Rs.1,40,000/- paid by the 2^nd respondent to Karuppanna Pillai. The First Appeal and Second Appeal filed by the 2^nd respondent were dismissed, confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. The petitioner, in his cross-

¶144

examination, admitted that he did not pay rent to the 1^st respondent, as the 1^st respondent did not demand. At the same time, the petitioner has

¶145

stated that he has paid rent to Karuppanna Pillai and after death of Karuppanna Pillai, he paid rent to his sons. These contentions are not

¶146

19/26

¶147

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶148

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶149

acceptable, as the petitioner knew about purchase of the petition premises by the 1^st respondent when they impleaded the 1^st respondent as 9^th defendant in the suit. Further, the petitioner has not filed any document to show that rents were paid to Karuppanna Pillai and subsequent to death of Karuppanna Pillai, to his sons. The petitioner has taken contradictory statement to the effect that they asked Karuppanna Pillai to adjust the advance amount of Rs.1,40,000/- paid by the 2^nd respondent towards rent payable by him. The petitioner has not produced any document to show that he requested Karuppanna Pillai to adjust the rent payable from and out of the advance amount paid by him. This is not the case of the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller or the learned Appellate Authority.

¶150

12(i) Another contradictory stand taken by the petitioner is that

¶151

after receipt of notice dated 13.01.2012, issued by the 1^st respondent, the petitioner tendered rent to the 1^st respondent, but he refused to receive the same. The learned Rent Controller has rightly held that if really the 1^st respondent refused to receive the rent. The petitioner ought to have taken

¶152

20/26

¶153

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶154

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶155

steps as per Section 8 of the Act to get order to deposit the rent into the Court. The learned Rent Controller also took note of the fact that even during pendency of R.C.O.P., the petitioner did not pay the rent. From the materials on record, it is seen that even though the petitioner has taken a stand that till disposal of the Second Appeal, the 1^st respondent has not become the landlord, the petitioner has not paid the rent even after dismissal of S.A.No.1260 of 2007 on 26.08.2011. The learned Rent Controller, considered all these facts and held that the petitioner committed wilful default. The learned Appellate Authority, considering all the materials, pleading and order of the learned Rent Controller, ordered eviction of the petitioner and 2^nd respondent and held that they have committed wilful default. The learned Appellate Authority has also took note of the fact that the petitioner has not paid the rent even during pendency of R.C.A. and confirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller with regard to wilful default. There is no error in the order of the learned Rent Controller as well as the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, warranting interference by this Court.

¶156

21/26

¶157

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶158

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶159

13.As far as owner's occupation is concerned, the 1^st respondent

¶160

has stated that he is carrying on Silver Articles business at D.No.172, Shevapet Main Road, Shevapet, Salem, in a rented premises, along with his mother and brother, in a partnership. The 1^st respondent has also stated that he is not owning any non-residential building within Salem city or in any other place. The 1^st respondent produced Exs.P12 and P13, lease agreement and rent receipts paid by him to his landlord and proved that he is carrying on business in a rented premises. The petitioner has denied the claim of the 1^st respondent that he is not owning any immovable property for non-residential building. When the petitioner has taken such a stand, it is for him to prove that the 1^st respondent is owning another non-residential building and claim of the 1^st respondent is not bonafide.

¶161

13(i) Both the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Authority considered the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and held that the requirement of the petition premises by the 1^st respondent, for his Silver Articles business is

¶162

22/26

¶163

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶164

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶165

bonafide. The Courts below also rightly held that it is for the landlord to decide which premises is suitable for him to do business and it is not for the tenant to dictate which premises will be suitable for the landlord's business. In view of the above facts, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner do not advance the case of

¶166

the petitioner.

¶167

13(ii) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the 1^st respondent could have adjusted the rent payable by the 1^st respondent from and out of the sum of Rs.1,40,000/- or interest

¶168

payable for the said amount and therefore, there is no default much less wilful default in payment of rent, is without merits. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that the 1^st respondent has deposited a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as directed by the Trial Court to the

¶169

credit of O.S.No.368 of 1999 and the said contention was not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Further, the petitioner

¶170

has not given any instructions to adjust the rent payable by him from and out of the advance amount of Rs.1,40,000/-. Without any instruction by

¶171

23/26

¶172

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶173

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶174

the petitioner or 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent cannot deduct the rent payable by the petitioner, from and out of Rs.1,40,000/-.

¶175

13(iii) Considering the entire materials, the petitioner has not made

¶176

out any case for interfering with the order of the learned Rent Controller

¶177

as well as the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority. Both the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Appellate Authority have given cogent and valid reason for ordering eviction. There is no error or irregularity in the order and judgment of the learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority respectively, warranting interference by this Court.

¶178

In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶179

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶180

22.10.2021 Index :: Yes/No gsa

¶181

24/26

¶182

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶183

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶184

¶185

1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Salem.

¶186

2.The Principal District Munsif, (Rent Controller), Salem.

¶187

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶188

25/26

¶189

C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4625 of 2015

¶190

V.M.VELUMANI, J.

¶191

gsa

¶192

C.R.P.(PD).No.4625 of 2015

¶193

22.10.2021

¶194

26/26

¶195

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

S.Natarajan v. P.Sukumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Natarajan v. P.Sukumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Ranganathan Vs T.D.Sarasabooshani Ammal

A.Ranganathan Vs T.D.Sarasabooshani Ammal

S.Thangavelu Vs R.Selvakumar

M.Chandramouli Vs Eswaran Naidu(Died)

Sri.Venkataramana Cotton Vs Sri Kannapiran Spinning Mills

Kandasamy(Died) Vs K.P. Palanisamy