Dismissed¶12

Chandrasekar v. Prakalathan

Madras HC25 Feb 2025CRP(MD)/2542/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: wilful default during pendency of eviction proceedings; Section 11(4) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960; Section 148 CPC extension of time; non-payment of rent; R.C.O.P.No.72 of 2018; R.C.A.Nos.16 & 25 of 2022; Principal Subordinate Judge / Sub Court Tiruchirappalli; Article 227 civil revision; tenant lathe works; time till 31.08.2025 to vacate; concurrent findings of Rent Controller and appellate authority not interfered with; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Both Civil Revision Petitions dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed; however, considering that the petitioner runs a lathe works in the premises, time granted till 31.08.2025 to vacate and hand over vacant possession. ¶12

Chandrasekar Vs Prakalathan — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the tenant committed wilful default warranting eviction, including default committed during the pendency of the rent control proceedings. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

The tenant's non-compliance with the orders passed under Section 11(4) of the Act shows that he committed wilful default even during the pendency of the rent control proceedings.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

A tenant must continue to pay rent not only during the subsistence of the tenancy but also during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, and any default committed during such pendency can also be treated as wilful default.

¶11

Key takeaways

Having not complied with the Section 11(4) orders, the Courts below were constrained to order eviction, and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the appellate authority.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rent Control / Wilful default during pendency - Tenant failed to comply with the order passed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 directing deposit of rental arrears by 13.12.2021; his Section 148 C.P.C. extension petition (allowed on 17.02.2022 granting a further fifteen days) also went uncomplied with and was dismissed. Holding that a tenant must continue paying rent during the pendency of eviction proceedings and that default during pendency can equally constitute wilful default, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the appellate authority (separate orders dated 22.08.2024 in R.C.A.Nos.16 and 25 of 2022). Both civil revision petitions under Article 227 dismissed with no costs; since the tenant runs a lathe works in the premises, time till 31.08.2025 granted to vacate and hand over vacant possession.

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2542 & 2543 of 2024

¶2

THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 25.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2542 & 2543 of 2024 and C.M.P(MD)No.14753 of 2024

¶7

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.2542 of 2024

¶8

Chandrasekar ...Petitioner/Appellant/ Petitioner/Respondent Vs.

¶9

Prakalathan ...Respondent/Respondent/ Respondent/Petitioner

¶10

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the Fair and Decreetal order, dated 22.08.2024 made in R.C.A.No.16 of 2022 against I.A.No.2 of 2021 in R.C.O.P.No.72 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, and allow the Civil Revision Petition.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Velpradeep

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

1/8

¶16

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2542 & 2543 of 2024

¶17

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.2543 of 2024

¶18

Chandrasekar ...Petitioner/Appellant/ Petitioner/Respondent

¶19

Vs.

¶20

Prakalathan ...Respondent/Respondent/ Respondent/Petitioner

¶21

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the Fair and Decreetal order, dated 22.08.2024 made in R.C.A.No.25 of 2022 in R.C.O.P.No.72 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Velpradeep For Respondent : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj

¶23

COMMON ORDER

¶24

These revision petitions have been filed by the tenant/respondent in R.C.O.P.No.72 of 2018, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli.

¶25

2.The above said rent control proceedings were initiated by the landlord for evicting the tenant on the ground of wilful default and owner's occupation.

¶26

The learned Counsel appearing for the landlord had contended that the monthly rent is Rs.4,500/- and the tenant had not paid the monthly rent from November 2016 to June 2018.

¶27

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

¶28

2/8

¶29

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2542 & 2543 of 2024

¶30

3.Pending eviction proceedings, the landlord had filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for evicting the tenant on the ground of non-payment of the rent.

¶31

4.The said application came to be allowed on 13.07.2021 directing the tenant to pay the arrears before 13.12.2021. The tenant having not complied with the order, but filed I.A.No.2 of 2021, seeking extension of time under Section 148 of C.P.C. The rent controller had graciously extended the time by 15 days to deposit the arrears of rent. Since the amount has not been deposited, the extension petition got dismissed. The tenant had chosen to challenge the order passed in 11(4) in R.C.A.No.16 of 2022, before the appellate authority.

¶32

5.The main eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No.72 of 2018 was taken up for hearing and the rent controller, relying upon the order passed under Section 11(4) of the Act had ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default. Challenging the same, the tenant had filed R.C.A.No.25 of 2022. Both the appeals filed by the tenants were dismissed by the appellate authority by way of separate orders, dated 22.08.2024. Challenging these orders, the present revision petitions have been filed.

¶33

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

¶34

3/8

¶35

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2542 & 2543 of 2024

¶36

6.According to the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, the default period lies during the Covid-19 period. Thereafter, the tenant was regularly paying the rent without any default. In fact, as on today, there is no rental arrears. The tenant is running a lathe works in the petition mentioned property. The petitioner is ready to give an undertaking that he would not commit default of even a month's rent.

¶37

7.The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has further submits that the order in main R.C.O.P. has not been passed after hearing the submissions on either side. The rent controller has proceeded to order eviction merely on the basis of the orders passed by him under Section 11(4) of the Act. The said order has been confirmed by the appellate authority. When the eviction petition has not been considered on its own merits, the said order is liable to be set aside.

¶38

8.Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord had contended that 11(4) application was allowed by the rent controller granting five months time to the tenant to deposit the rent. The tenant had sought for extension of time and the same was also granted. Despite extension of time, the

¶39

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

¶40

4/8

¶41

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2542 & 2543 of 2024

¶42

tenant has not chosen to deposit the amount. This would clearly indicate that even pending proceedings, the tenant has committed wilful default and therefore, the rent controller as well as the appellate authority were right in ordering eviction on the ground of wilful default. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of these revision petitions.

¶43

9.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶44

10.The facts captured above will clearly indicate that the petitioner has suffered an order under Section 11(4) of the Act on 13.07.2021, wherein he was directed to pay the entire rental arrears on or before 13.12.2021. The tenant has not complied with the said order, but filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 under Section 148 of C.P.C. seeking extension of time. The said application was allowed on 17.02.2022, permitting the tenant to deposit the rent granting further time of fifteen days. Since the said order has also not complied with, extension petition got dismissed. Therefore, it is clear that the tenant has not complied with the orders passed under Section 11(4) of the Act and he has committed wilful default even during the pendency of the rent control proceedings.

¶45

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

¶46

5/8

¶47

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2542 & 2543 of 2024

¶48

11.It is settled position of law that the tenant should continue to pay the rent not only during the subsistence of the tenancy period but also during the pendency of the eviction proceedings. Any default committed during the pendency of the eviction proceedings can also be considered to be a wilful default. In the present case, having not complied with the orders passed under Section 11(4) of the Act, the Courts below have been constrained to order eviction. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent controller as well as the appellate authority.

¶49

12.Considering the fact that the petitioner is running a lathe works in the petitioner's premises, time is granted till 31.08.2025 to vacate and hand over vacant possession. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶50

25.02.2025

¶51

Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No RJR

¶52

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

¶53

6/8

¶54

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.2542 & 2543 of 2024

¶55

¶56