1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 15.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2000 of 2011 P.N.J.Nagarajan .. Petitioner/Petitioner Vs. 1.Berkman Xavier 2.Geetha .. Respondents/Respondents Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the Judgment and decree dated 09.02.2010 passed in Rent Control Appeal No.55 of 2007 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub court, Tiruchirappalli confirming the fair and decretal order dated 31.07.2006 passed in R.C.O.P.No.66 of 2003 by the Rent Controller/First Additional District Munsif court, Tiruchirappalli. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Arun Jayatram For Respondents : Mr.R.Sundar ORDER The concurrent orders passed in R.C.O.P.No.66 of 2003 by the Rent Controller/ First Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli and in Rent Control Appeal No.55 of 2007 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/ Principal Sub court, Tiruchirappalli are being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The revision petitioner herein has filed the petition in question under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 praying to permit him to deposit monthly rents from February, 2003 and the same has been taken on file in R.C.O.P.No.66 of 2003. 3. The Rent Controller after considering the contentions raised on either side has found that the revision petitioner/petitioner has failed to tender lawful rent and therefore he is not entitled to get the relief sought for in R.C.O.P.No.66 of 2003 and consequently dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the petitioner as appellant has preferred Rent Control Appeal No.55 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 4. The Rent Control Appellate Authority after hearing both sides and upon reappraising the evidence available on record has dismissed Rent Control Appeal No.55 of 2007 and thereby confirmed the dismissal order passed in R.C.O.P.No.66 of 2003 by the Rent controller. Against the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/petitioner has repeatedly contended that the respondents are the landlords of the demised building and monthly rent is Rs.300/- and the respondents have failed to receive monthly rent for the month of February, 2003 and under the said circumstances the pre-requisites of Section 8 have been complied with and due to that the present petition has been filed, but the authorities below have erroneously found that the revision petitioner has not tendered lawful rent to the respondents and therefore the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below are liable to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that monthly rent for the demised building is not Rs.300/- and even on the basis of the documents filed on the side of the revision petitioner, the Court can easily come to a conclusion that the monthly rent is Rs.350/- and since the revision petitioner/petitioner has failed to pay proper monthly rent from February, 2003, the present petition is not legally maintainable and therefore the concurrent orders passed by authorities below are perfectly correct and the same do not warrant interference. 7. On the basis of the rival submissions made on either side, the Court has to look into as to whether the monthly rent of the demised building as stated in the petition is Rs.300/- or as contended on the side of the respondents Rs.350/-? 8. On the side of the revision petitioner/ petitioner Exs.A.1 to A.7 have been marked. In Ex.A.7, some entries are found place with regard to payment of monthly rents, wherein it has been clearly stated that monthly rent is Rs.300/- and deduction is Rs.50/-. The specific defence taken on the side of the revision petitioner is that towards amenity, every month he is entitled to deduct Rs.50/-. The revision petitioner has been examined as P.W.1. During the course of cross-examination, he has stated in his evidence that no specific authorisation has been obtained from the respondents for the purpose of deducting Rs.50/-. Therefore it goes without saying that monthly rent of the demised building is Rs.350/-. The revision petitioner has stated in the petition to the effect that the monthly rent of the demised building is Rs.300/- and he has sent the same through money order. Considering the fact that the revision petitioner has not tendered lawful rent to the respondents, the relief sought for in the present petition cannot be granted. The authorities below after considering the lapses on the part of the revision petitioner/petitioner have rightly rejected the relief sought for in R.C.O.P.No.66 of 2003. In view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error nor illegality in the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below and therefore the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below are confirmed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (A.E) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruchirappalli. 2.The First Additional District Munsif Rent Controller, Tiruchirappalli. + 1 cc to Mr.R.Sundar, Advocate, SR No.39730 C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.2000 of 2011 15.11.2011 smn/RJ/30.11.11 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/