1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1177 and 1178 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.2 of 2011 M.Muthuselvam .. Petitioner in both C.R.Ps./Tenant Vs. C.Meenkshiammal @ Meenakshi .. Respondent in both C.R.Ps./Landlord Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the fair and decretal orders dated 22.12.2010 passed in Rent Control Appeal Nos.48 and 47 of 2009 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Madurai confirming the fair and decretal orders dated 23.12.2008 and 02.07.2008 passed in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2007 and in Interlocutory Application No.163 of 2007 in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2007 respectively by the Rent Controller/Additinal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Vallinayagam in both C.R.Ps. For Respondent : Mr.V.Bharathidasan in both C.R.Ps. COMMON ORDER The concurrent orders passed in Interlocutory Application No.163 of 2007 in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2007 and in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2007 by the Rent Controller/Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town and in Rent Control Appeal Nos.47 and 48 of 2009 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Madurai are being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petitions. 2. The respondent herein as petitioner has filed R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Controller on the grounds of wilful default and own use and occupation, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as sole respondent. During pendency of the same, the respondent/petitioner as petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application No.163 of 2007 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 so as to direct the respondent/tenant to pay arrears of monthly rents. The Rent Controller has allowed the same and thereby directed the respondent/tenant to pay arrears of monthly rent on or before 30.07.2008. Since the respondent/tenant has not complied with the condition mentioned in the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.163 of 2007, the petition filed in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2007 is allowed as prayed for by the Rent Controller. Against the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.163 of 2007, Rent Control Appeal No.47 of 2009 and against the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2007, Rent Control Appeal No.48 of 2009 have been preferred on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The Rent Control Appellate Authority after considering the rival contentions putforth on either side, has dismissed Rent Control Appeal Nos.47 and 48 of 2009 and thereby confirmed the orders passed by the Rent Controller in Interlocutory Application No.163 of 2007 and also in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2007. Against the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below, these Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that the revision petitioner/respondent/tenant has paid monthly rents upto November, 2005 and the same has not been deducted in the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.163 of 2007 and therefore the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.163 of 2007 is liable to be set aside and consequently the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2007 is also liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that in the counter filed on the side of the revision petitioner in Interlocutory Application No.163 of 2007, it has been specifically stated that upto November, 2005, the respondent has paid rent and the petition under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 has been filed with regard to monthly rents started from August, 2004 to January, 2007 and in the decretal order whatever amounts paid by the respondent has been deducted and after making deductions, the remaining amount should be paid only by the revision petitioner/respondent, but he has not paid the same and under the said circumstances R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2007 is liable to be allowed as prayed for and the same has been done by the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority after considering the total inaction on the part of the revision petitioner in obeying the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.163 of 2007 has rightly dismissed Rent Control Appeal Nos.47 and 48 of 2007 and therefore the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below are not liable to be interfered with. 6. As narrated earlier, R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2007 has been filed for getting an order of eviction on the grounds of wilful default and for own use and occupation. During pendency of the same, Interlocutory Application No.163 of 2007 has been filed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Rent Controller after considering all the contentions raised on either side has passed the impugned order, whereby directed the respondent/revision petitioner to pay arrears of rent on or before 30.07.2008. In the decretal order, it has been clearly mentioned that all the amounts mentioned by the revision petitioner have been deducted. Even after making such kind of deduction with regard to remaining amount, no effort has been taken so as to pay off the same to the respondent. Therefore it is quite clear that the revision petitioner has committed wilful default in paying monthly rent. Since the revision petitioner has not paid the amount mentioned in the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.163 of 2007, the petition filed in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2007 is liable to be allowed. The Rent Controller has rightly allowed R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2007. The Rent Control Appellate Authority after considering the overall situation which is in existence in the present proceedings has rightly dismissed Rent Control Appeal Nos.47 and 48 of 2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. In view of the discussion made earlier, this court has not found any error in the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below and altogether these Civil Revision Petitions deserve to be dismissed. 8. In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed without costs and the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below are confirmed. However the revision petitioner is given four 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 Principal Subordinate Judge, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Madurai. 2.The Additional District Munsif, Rent Controller, Madurai Town. + 1 cc to Mr.N.Vallinayagam, Advocate, SR No.39843 COMMON ORDER MADE IN C.R.P(NPD)(MD)Nos.1177 and 1178 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2011 15.11.2011 smn RJ/10.12.11 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/