1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2009 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 P.Ayyachamy .. Petitioner Vs. K.S.Mariappan .. Respondent Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the fair and decretal order dated 30.06.2011 passed in Rent Control Appeal No.1 of 2010 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Sub Court, Sankarankovil confirming the fair and decretal order dated 04.09.2010 passed in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2008 by the Rent Controller/District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate's Court, Sivagiri. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nallathambi For Respondent : Mr.F.X.Eugene ORDER The order of eviction passed in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2008 by the Rent Controller/ District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate's Court, Sivagiri and modified in the order passed in Rent Control Appeal No.1 of 2010 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Sub Court, Sankarankovil are being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The respondent herein as petitioner has filed R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Rent Controller on three grounds, namely, wilful default, own use and occupation and also for demolition and reconstruction, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as sole respondent. 3. It is stated in the petition that the demised building is originally belonged to one Janaki Ammal and she executed a will dated 15.12.1986 in favour of one Muthumari. On 15.05.2008, the said Muthumari has sold the demised building to the petitioner. The demised building has been let out to the respondent prior to ten years. Now the present monthly rent is Rs.1,000/-. The factum of purchase has been intimated to the respondent and thereby directed him to pay monthly rent to the petitioner. But the petitioner has failed to pay monthly rent and thereby committed wilful default in paying monthly rent from 01.03.2008 till filing of the present petition. Further the demised building is in a dilapidated condition and the same requires immediate demolition and reconstruction for own use and occupation. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. In the counter filed on the side of the respondent, it is averred that it is false to say that the present monthly rent is Rs.1,000/-. It is false to say that the petitioner has purchased the demised building and the same has been intimated to the respondent. The respondent has not committed wilful default in paying monthly rent. Since the petitioner has given a police complaint so as to evict the respondent from the demised building, the respondent as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.159 of 2008. It is also equally false to say that the demised building is in a dilapidated condition and requires immediate demolition and reconstruction. The demised building is not required for own use and occupation of the petitioner. There is no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 5. On the basis of the available evidence on record, the Rent Controller has passed an order of eviction on the basis of the grounds mentioned in the petition. Against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, the respondent/tenant as appellant has filed Rent Control Appeal No.1 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 6. The Rent Control Appellate Authority after considering all the contentions raised on either side has allowed Rent Control Appeal No.1 of 2010 in part and thereby modified the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller to the effect that the appellant/respondent is liable to be evicted from the demised building on the ground of wilful default and dismissed R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2008 in respect of other grounds mentioned therein. Against the orders passed by the authorities below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the respondent/tenant as revision petitioner. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has attacked the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below with regard to wilful default in paying monthly rent on the following grounds: (a) In the petition it has been stated to the effect that from March, 2008 till filing of the petition, the revision petitioner/respondent has failed to pay monthly rent. But the respondent/petitioner has purchased the demised building only under a registered sale deed dated 15.05.2008 and therefore the period in which the revision petitioner/respondent is said to have committed wilful default in paying monthly rent is not correct and further the revision petitioner/respondent has paid entire monthly rent to the erstwhile owner of the demised building and therefore the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the authorities below are liable to be set aside. (b) In the petition, it has been erroneously stated that the revision petitioner/ respondent is liable to pay monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. But actual monthly rent is Rs.500/- and on that score also the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the authorities below are liable to be set aside. 8. In order to repudiate the contentions urged on the side of the revision petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that the respondent/petitioner has purchased the demised building under a registered sale deed dated 15.05.2008 and the factum of purchase has been intimated to the revision petitioner and even though it has been duly intimated to the revision petitioner, he has not cared to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 pay monthly rent, but he has erroneously filed Original Suit No.159 of 2008 and the authorities below after considering the overall evidence available on record have rightly rejected the contentions putforth on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent/tenant with regard to alleged wilful default in paying monthly rent and therefore the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below need not be interfered with. 9. For the purpose of analysing the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into the period mentioned in the petition with regard to alleged wilful default in paying monthly rent and also the available evidence on record. In the petition it has been specifically stated that from March, 2008 upto filing of the petition, the revision petitioner/respondent/ tenant has failed to pay monthly rent to the petitioner and thereby committed wilful default in paying monthly rent. 10. It is seen from the records that the respondent/petitioner has purchased the demised building only on 15.05.2008. Therefore only from 15.05.2008, the respondent/petitioner has become absolute owner of the demised building. But in the petition, it has been erroneously mentioned that from March, 2008, the revision petitioner/ respondent has failed to pay monthly rent. 11. It is also seen from the records that during September, 2008, the revision petitioner/ respondent as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.159 of 2008 for the relief of permanent injunction, wherein the present respondent/ petitioner has been shown as defendant. Since Original Suit No.159 of 2008 has been instituted during September, 2008, the Court can easily cull out that the revision petitioner/respondent might have known the factum of purchase made by the respondent/petitioner. Even though in the present petition, it has been specifically stated that from March, 2008 upto filing of the petition, the revision petitioner/respondent has failed to pay monthly rent and considering the fact that the said suit has been instituted during September, 2008, this Court is of the view that after purchase the revision petitioner/ respondent has failed to pay monthly rent to the respondent/petitioner. Since the revision petitioner/respondent has failed to pay monthly rent from the date of purchase, the Court can easily come to a conclusion that he committed wilful default in paying monthly rent. 12. The authorities below after considering the overall evidence adduced on either side have rightly rejected the defence putforth on the side of the revision petitioner/ respondent. 13. The second contention putforth on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent is that in the petition it has been falsely stated to the effect that the revision petitioner/ respondent is liable to pay monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. But the actual monthly rent is only Rs.500/-. Whether monthly rent is Rs.1,000/- or Rs.500/-, as pointed out earlier, the revision petitioner/respondent has failed to pay monthly rent, whatever be the amount from the date of sale deed, which stands in the name of the respondent/petitioner. Therefore the second point urged on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent is of no use. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 14. It has already been discussed in detail that the authorities below after making elaborate discussion have rightly found that the revision petitioner/respondent has committed wilful default in paying monthly rent and in view of the foregoing enunciation of factual aspects, this Court has not found any force in the contentions urged on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 15. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below with regard to wilful default in paying monthly rent are confirmed. However the revision petitioner/respondent is given five months time to vacate the demised building. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl. Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Subordinate Judge, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Sankarankovil. 2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rent Controller, Sivagiri. + 1 cc to MR.M.Vallinayagam, Advocate, SR No.38299 + 1 cc to Mr.F.X.Eugene, Advocate, SR No.38647 C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.2009 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 04.11.2011 smn RJ/23.11.11 4p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/