High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
Kothandaraman & Others
Versus
K. Rajammal
C.R.P.NPD Nos.36 of 2006 to 42 of 2006 and CMP Nos.266 to 269 of 2006
Decided On : 16-03-2007
Eviction - Rental Arrears - Sec.8(5) of the Act - [Sec.8(5)] - The court discussed the rental arrears for the months of September, October, November, December 2002, and January 2003. The tenants claimed that they paid water tax arrears, which were adjusted towards the rents. The court found that there was willful default due to non-payment of rental for the mentioned months. The court also upheld the eviction on the grounds of personal use and occupation and additional accommodation due to the landlady's age and ailment.
Fact of the Case:
The tenants were evicted for rental arrears and on the grounds of personal use and occupation and additional accommodation. The court found that there was willful default in the non-payment of rental for specific months and upheld the eviction on the grounds of personal use and occupation and additional accommodation. The tenants were granted six months to vacate and hand over possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was willful default in the non-payment of rental for specific months and upheld the eviction on the grounds of personal use and occupation and additional accommodation. The tenants were granted six months to vacate and hand over possession.
Issues: Rental arrears, willful default, personal use and occupation, additional accommodation
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that there was willful default in the non-payment of rental for specific months and upheld the eviction on the grounds of personal use and occupation and additional accommodation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the civil revision petitions and granted the tenants six months to vacate and hand over possession.
Common Order:
This order shall govern all the above seven revision petitions.
2. The unsuccessful tenants, three in number, who have suffered an order of eviction in the three RCOPs filed by the respondent-landlady in RCOP Nos.439, 440 and 441 of 2003, and whose appeals in RCA Nos.788, 789 and 790 of 2004 have failed, have brought forth three revisions in CRP Nos.36, 37 and 38 of 2006 respectively.
3. Equally, on dismissal of the three RCOPs filed by the tenants for deposit of rental arrears under Sec.8(5) of the Act in RCOP Nos.1037, 1038 and 1039 of 2003, they preferred three appeals in RCA Nos.798, 799 and 800 of 2004, and on dismissal of the same, they have brought forth the other three revisions in CRP Nos.39, 40 and 41 of 2006 respectively.
4. The landlady filed another petition in RCOP No.1370 of 2002 against the tenant who is actually shown as the respondent in RCOP No.440/2003, seeking eviction on the grounds of personal use and occupation and additional accommodation, and the said petition was ordered. Aggrieved, the said tenant took it on appeal in RCA No.1325 of 2004, and on its failure, she brought forth CRP No.42/2006.
5. The respondent-landlady filed the above three RCOPs against the revision petitioners-tenants alleging in short that the premises were occupied by the revision petitioners-tenants on monthly rental basis at the rate of Rs.375/-, Rs.525/-and Rs.540/- respectively; that there has been arrears of rent from September 2002 till January 2003, and thus, there was willful default, and under the circumstances, they were to be evicted.
6. The revision petitioners-tenants namely the respondents in those RCOPs, contested the same stating that there was neither default nor willful default; that it is true that they have been the tenants on monthly rental basis; that for the three months namely September, October and November 2002, there was water tax arrears; that under the circumstances, there was termination of water connection; that they issued a notice to the landlady; but, she did not comply with the demand made therein; that under the circumstances, after issuing a notice, each tenant has paid the entire water tax arrears; that thereafter, it was adjusted towards the rents for the months of September, October and November 2002; that for these periods, the electricity charges were sent by money orders; but, they were refused; that as regards the rent for the month of December 2002, an application under Sec.8(5) of the Act was filed by every tenant; that they were also pending, and under the circumstances, all the above RCOPs filed by the landlady were to be dismissed.
7. The revision petitioners-tenants filed RCOP Nos.1037, 1038 and 1039 of 2003 stating that after adjusting the payment of water tax arrears towards rental arrears for September, October and November 2002, electricity charges were sent by money orders; but, they were refused, and under the circumstances, they had no chance than to approach the Rent Controller for depositing the rental from the month of December 2002; that accordingly, they have applied for, and hence, they should be permitted to make the deposit thereon. All these three petitions were contested by the landlady.
.8. On enquiry jointly by the Rent Controller, all the above petitions filed by the landlady, were allowed, and the petitions filed by the tenants, were dismissed. The appeals at the instance of the tenants failed, and hence, the above six revisions have been brought forth by the tenants before this Court.
9. One more petition was filed by the landlady stating that she is aged 70 years; that she is suffering from hypertension and diabetics; that she is occupying the premises in the second floor; that due to her age and illness, she finds it difficult to occupy the same; that under such circumstances, she requires one of the premises found in the ground floor; that for her personal use and occupation and also for additional accommodation, she want
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.