Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 3582
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN
M. Venkatachalam & Others
Versus
N. Palanisamy Thevar
C.R.P. (NPD) No.3085 of 2007 and 3086 of 2007 and M.P. No.1 and 1 of 2007
Decided On : 14-11-2007
For the Petitioners:R. Subramaniam, Sr. Counsel, R. Saseetharan, Advocate. For the Respondent: --
The landlord has the burden to prove wilful default, and the tenant has the duty to disprove it. The statutory obligation to pay rent is emphasized, and the denial of title must be bonafide.
Headnote:
Rent Control - Denial of Title - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Sections 10(1) and 10(2)(i) - The court discussed the application of Sections 10(1) and 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, which deal with denial of title and wilful default. The court emphasized the landlord's burden to prove wilful default and the tenant's duty to disprove it. The court also highlighted the statutory obligation to pay rent and the consequences of failing to do so.
Fact of the Case:
The tenants were involved in a dispute with the landlord regarding non-payment of rent and denial of title. The landlord had purchased the property from the tenants' previous vendor and repeatedly requested rent payment, which the tenants failed to provide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenants were guilty of wilful default in payment of rent and that their denial of the landlord's title was not bonafide. The court emphasized the landlord's burden to prove wilful default and the statutory obligation to pay rent.
Issues: The issues involved denial of title, wilful default in payment of rent, and the requirement of the premises for the landlord's occupation or family.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the landlord proved wilful default, and the burden lay on the tenants to disprove it. The court also emphasized that the denial of title was not bonafide and that the High Court could not interfere when concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on valid evidence and correct application of law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petitions, emphasizing the lack of merit and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.
These revision petitions are listed today for admission and I heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners.
2. In view of the fact that the respondent in both the revision petitions are same person and the issues involved are also the same, both the revision petitions are disposed of by this common order.
3. The revision petitioners are the tenants/ respondents in RCOP Nos. 8 and 9 of 2001 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Tirupur, Coimbatore District, which are filed by the landlord/respondent herein on the ground of denial of title and wilful default under Sections 10 (1) and 10 (2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called as the Act respectively. The Rent Controller allowed the said RCOP Nos. 8 and 9 of 2001 by order dated 20.06.2005. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners herein have filed R.C.A. Nos. 3 and 6 of 2006 respectively before the Appellate Authority, which were also dismissed on 30.10.2006, hence, the present CRP Nos. 3085 and 3086 of 2007 respectively were filed under Section 25 of the Act.
4. The respondent herein has purchased the petition mentioned properties from one T.S. Dhandapani Chettiar under a registered sale deed dated 22.06.1981. The petitioners herein were tenants for a monthly rent of Rs.20/- and Rs.25/- respectively under the respondents vendor. After purchasing the property, the respondent herein informed the petitioners that he purchased the premises and repeatedly called upon them to pay the rent to him, but the petitioners have not paid or tendered the rent.
.5. The petitioners herein have filed O.S. No. 172 of 1981 before the Sub Court, Tirupur for specific performance on the ground that they have entered into an oral agreement with vendor of the petitioner namely Dhandapani Chettiar. The said suit was decreed as prayed for on 30.09.1982. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the respondent herein and his vendor have filed an appeal in A.S. No. 824 of 1982 before this Court, which was allowed on 29.09.2000. The petitioners have contended first time before this Court in these revision petitions that they have filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 29.09.2000 in A.S. No. 824 of 1982 before this Court with a delay of 10 days in CMP No. 12014 of 2002 in LPA SR No. 10993 of 2000 and in the said petition, notice was ordered by this Court as such the same is still pending. The respondent contended that A.S. No. 824 of 1982 was allowed by this Court as early as 29.09.2000 thereby the petitioners were declared as tenants under the respondent and even after that decree and judgment, they have deliberately failed to pay the rent and also without bonafide denied the title of respondent. The respondent herein has issued notices dated 26.03.2001 and 03.02.2001 respectively calling upon the petitioners to pay the rental arrears, which was received by the petitioner in CRP No. 3085 of 2006 and the petitioners in CRP No. 3086 of 2007 refused to receive the same, however, they have not paid any rent.
6. Before the Rent Controller, the respondent herein has marked certified copy of the Judgment and Decree made in A.S. No. 824 of 1982, notices dated 26.03.2001 and 03.02.2001 issued by the respondent to the petitioners, Acknowledgment Card, returned notices and examined himself as PW1 in both the cases. The Petitioner in CRP No. 3085 of 2007 has marked Ex.R1, certified copy of the Judgment made in O.S. No. 172 of 1981 and examined himself as RW1. The third petitioner in CRP No. 3086 has examined himself as RW1 and marked Ex. R1, certified copy of the judgment made in O.S.No. 172 of 1981.
7. The learned Rent Controller framed two issues namely (i) whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and (ii) whether the petitioners denied the title of the respondent without any bonafide. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller allowed
