Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAJESWARAN
Bahadurmul Sowcar & Another - Appellant
Versus
M.R.Lakshmanan & Others - Respondents
C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.2313 to 2315 of 2005
Decided On : 14 June 2006
wilful default - Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Sec.10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(2)(i) - [Sec.10(2)(ii)(a), Sec.10(2)(i)] - The court discussed the grounds of subletting and wilful default against the revision petitioners for an order of eviction of the revision petitioner from the property. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the tenant committed wilful default, leading to the eviction order.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed an eviction petition against the tenant for non-payment of rent and subletting. The tenant resisted the eviction proceedings, claiming that he had made efforts to pay the rent and that any default was not wilful.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent, as evidenced by the tenant's failure to follow the statutory procedures for depositing rent and the return of rent payments by the landlord. The court upheld the eviction orders based on the finding of wilful default.
Issues: The main issue was whether the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and whether the eviction orders were justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tenant's failure to follow statutory procedures for depositing rent and the return of rent payments by the landlord indicated wilful default. The court also emphasized the tenant's obligation to pay rent in accordance with the statutory provisions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petitions and upheld the eviction orders, finding that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent.
(Revision Petitions filed against the judgment dated 29.8.2005, in R.C.A.Nos.2,3 of 2003 & 7/1997, on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Tiruvannamalai (Appellate Authority) confirming the order dated 25.2.2003, 25.2.2003 and 24.10.1997 in H.R.C.O.P.Nos.16/1998, 9/2000 and RCOP No.3/1997 respectively, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai (Rent Controller).)
Common Order:
I. C.R.P.NPD No.2313/2005:
The unsuccessful tenant before both the authorities below is the first revision petitioner. H.R.C.O.P.No.16/1998 was filed by the respondents herein under Sec.10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on the grounds of subletting and wilful default against the revision petitioners for an order of eviction of the revision petitioner from the property bearing Door No.1, Asaliamman Koil Street, Tiruvannamalai Town. The respondents have stated in the eviction petition that the premises in question was occupied by the 1st revision petitioner 35 years ago on an yearly rent of Rs.750/-. The petition premises was originally belonged to one Murugappa Chettiar and Palaniyappa Chettiar. The said Murugappa Chettiar died in the year 1992 and Palaniappa Chettiar died in 1975. The respondents 1 to 5 herein are the sons of Murugappa Chettiar and respondents 6 to 8 are the sons of Palaniappa Chettiar. Thus all the 8 persons joined together and filed the eviction petition. It is the case of the landlords that the first revision petitioner/tenant did not pay the rent from the year 1992 onwards and he has been squatting on the property without paying any rent for the past 5 years. In anticipation of filing eviction petition, the 1st revision petitioner suddenly sent a notice on14.7.1995 along with a Demand Draft for Rs.2250/-. In that notice dated 14.7.1995, the tenant has stated that he has already filed a petition in H.R.C.O.P.No.2/1988 before the Rent Controller through his power of attorney to deposit the rent into court and the same was allowed. The tenant has also informed about the filing of H.R.C.O.P.No.14/1990 and the said H.R.C.O.P.No.14/1990 was dismissed on 29.6.1993 for not taking steps to bring the Legal Representatives of Murugappa Chettiar. The tenant has further informed in the notice dated 14.7.95 that he deposited the rent into court till 1992. As he could not find out the Legal Representatives of Murugappa Chettiar in spite of his best efforts, he could not pay the same from September 1992 to till date. According to the tenant, he came to know about the 3rd respondent herein only now through his lawyer and therefore he sent the notice dated 14.7.95 enclosing a demand draft for Rs.2,250/- being the rent for the period from September 1992 to August 1995. To this notice dated 14.7.95, the 3rd respondent herein sent a reply on 14.12.1995 stating that having kept quiet for the past 5 years without sending the rent, the tenant could not come forward to pay the rent and returned the demand draft sent by the tenant. Subsequently, the tenant/first petitioner herein sent a sum of Rs.750/- along with the notice dated 9.7.1996 and it was again returned by the landlords in their notice dated 23.9.96. The respondents herein further alleged in the RCOP that the 1st petitioner sublet the property to the 2nd petitioner and hence the Revision Petitioners are liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default and subletting.
2. The 1st petitioner herein filed a counter in HRCOP No.16/1998 and resisted the eviction proceedings. In his counter, the tenant stated that even though he came to know about the death of Murugappa Chettiar in the year 1993, only in 1995 he could obtain the particulars of Legal Representatives of Murugappa Chettiar and immediately he sent a notice dated 14.7.95 enclosing a demand draft for Rs.2,250/- being the rent for the period from September 1992 to August1995. Even when Murugappa Chettiar was alive, he filed HRCOP No
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
