1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:13.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2165 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 V.Kanakampujam :Petitioner/Tenant -Vs- C.M.Balkis Beevi :Respondent/Landlord Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the fair and decretal order dated 22.07.2011 passed in Rent Control Appeal No.5 of 2005 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Sub Court, Pudukkottai confirming fair and decretal order dated 14.10.2004 passed in R.C.O.P.No.31 of 2003 by the Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai. For Petitioner: Mr.M.Karthikeyavenkitachalapathy For Respondent: Mr.B.Jameel Arasu ORDER The concurrent orders of eviction passed in R.C.O.P.No.31 of 2003 by the Rent Controller/ Principal District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai and in Rent Control Appeal No.5 of 2005 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Sub Court, Pudukkottai are being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2.The respondent herein as petitioner has filed R.C.O.P.No.31 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as respondent/tenant. 3.In R.C.O.P.No.31 of 2003, it has been stated that the petitioner is the owner of the demised building and the same has been let out to the husband of the respondent on monthly rental basis and after the demise of the husband of the respondent, the respondent has been enjoying the demised building and she has committed wilful default in paying monthly rent from September, 2001 to 31.10.2003. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought for therein. 4.In the counter filed on the side of the respondent, it has been contended that with the prior permission of the petitioner/landlady, certain repairs have been rectified in the demised building by way of spending huge amounts. Under the said circumstances, the respondent is not bound to pay rent for the period mentioned in the petition and the monthly rent for the period mentioned in the petition has been adjusted towards https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the amount spent for repairs and therefore question of wilful default does not arise. Under the said circumstances, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 5.The authorities below after considering all the contentions raised on either side have rejected the defence putforth on the side of the respondent. Under the said circumstances, the only point that comes up for consideration in the present Civil Revision Petition is as to whether the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the authorities below are perfectly correct or the same require interference? 6.It is an admitted fact that the respondent herein is the owner of the demised building and the same has been let out to the husband of the revision petitioner on monthly rental basis. It is also equally an admitted fact that after the demise of the husband of the respondent, the respondent has been enjoying the demised building. In the petition, it has been clearly stated that from September, 2001 to 31.10.2003, the respondent has committed wilful default in paying monthly rent. 7.The only defence taken on the side of the respondent is that with the permission of the petitioner/landlord, certain repairs have been rectified and under the said circumstances there is an agreement to adjust monthly rent and due to that such adjustments have been made and therefore question of default in paying monthly rent does not arise. 8.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has advanced his argument only on the basis of the defence taken on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent/ tenant. His main contention is that only with the knowledge of the petitioner, certain repair works have been effected in the demised building by way of spending huge money and there is an understanding between the parties so as to adjust the monthly rents from and out of the amounts spent by the respondent and therefore question of default in paying monthly rent does not arise. 9.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent / petitioner/landlady has pointed out certain infirmities found in the deposition given by the revision petitioner/respondent/ tenant as well as in the written argument filed on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent/tenant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 10.The only defence, as stated supra, taken on the side of the revision petitioner is that only with the consent of the respondent/petitioner/landlady certain repair works have been effected in the demised building by way of spending huge amounts. In fact, the Rent Controller has observed on the basis of the Commissioner's Report and Plan that certain works have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 been done in the demised building. But the Rent Controller has given a finding to the effect that the defence putforth on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent/tenant cannot be accepted, since no convincing evidence is available with regard to consent alleged to have been obtained from the petitioner/landlady. 11.Even assuming without conceding that those repair works have been done only by the revision petitioner/ respondent/tenant, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that those works have been done only with the concurrence of the petitioner/landlady. Without proving the above factual aspects or without having clinching evidence to that aspect, the Court cannot automatically come to a conclusion that all those works have been done with the consent of the petitioner/landlady. Since the consent of the petitioner/landlady has not been obtained on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent/ tenant, the defence taken on her side is of no use. 12.The consistent case of the respondent/ petitioner/ landlady is that from September, 2001 to 31.10.2003, the revision petitioner/ respondent/tenant has committed wilful default in paying monthly rent. Since the defence taken on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent/ tenant has not been established to the satisfaction of the Court, it is needless to say that the revision petitioner/respondent/tenant has committed wilful default in paying monthly rent. The authorities below, after considering all the contentions raised on either side, have rightly rejected the defence taken on the side of the revision petitioner. In view of the discussion made earlier, this court has not found any error in the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the authorities below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 13.In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the authorities below are confirmed. However the revision petitioner is given six months time to vacate the demised building. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority/ Subordinate Judge,Pudukkottai. 2.The Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif,Pudukkottai. +1CC to Mr.M.Karthikeyavenkitachalapathy, Advocate. SR.No.43671. RP/30.12.2011/3P/4C. CRP(NPD)(MD)No.2165/11 and MP(MD)No.1/11. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/