Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 5420
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. PALANIVELU
K.A. Jaganathan
Versus
S. Shanju & Another
C.R.P.(NPD) No.2166 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on : 09-12-2009
For Petitioner:Mr.S.V.Jeyaraman, Senior Counsel for Mr.MA.P.Thangavel, Advocate. For Respondents:Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Valliappan, Advocate.
The judgment establishes that wilful default in rent payment can lead to eviction, and the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is not mandatory for filing an eviction petition.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Buildings - Lease & Rent control - 1960, XXIII of 1973, 1 of 1980 - The judgment discusses the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent control) Act 1960 as amended by Act XXIII of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980. It interprets the obligations of the landlord and tenant, the requirement of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the concept of wilful default.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent control) Act 1960 against an eviction order. The landlord claimed wilful default in rent payment, while the tenant argued that the landlord failed to fulfill promises of repairs and additional leasing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant had wilfully defaulted in rent payment and that the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not a prerequisite for filing an eviction petition.
Issues: The issues revolved around wilful default in rent payment, the landlord's obligation to make repairs, and the necessity of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tenant's wilful default was evident, and the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was not mandatory for filing an eviction petition.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed, confirming the findings of wilful default and the non-requirement of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
This petition has been filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent control) Act 1960 as amended Act XXIII of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 against the fair and final order passed in R.C.A.No.12 of 2005, dated 18.06.2005, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (1st Additional Sub-Court), Erode in confirming the fair and final order in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2002, dated 011. 2004, on the file of the Rent controller (1st Additional District Munsif Court) Erode.
2. In the petition for eviction filed by the respondents under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, the following are stated:-
2.(i) On 30.05.1996, under a registered Lease Deed, the respondent took the scheduled premises on lease for the period from 30.05.1996 to 29.05.2001. He paid an advance amount of Rs.10,000/- on the same day. The rent was agreed to at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month payable on or before 7th day of every succeeding English month. The petitioners are issuing receipts for the payment of rent. The respondent agreed to vacate and surrender vacant possession on the expiry of five years. i.e.on 29.05.2001. The respondent also agreed in writing to receive the advance amount of Rs.10,000/-without any interest after surrendering the vacant possession to the petitioners.
2.(ii) It is also mentioned in the Lease Deed that if the respondent failed to vacate the premises, the petitioners are at liberty to file a petition for eviction. He paid the rent for the month of May 2001 on 02.06.2001 and obtained receipt from the petitioners. Afterwards, he did not pay the rent from the month of June 2001 till this date. He is in arrears of 12 months rent. In spite of demands, he did not pay the arrears of rent. It is wilful default. Hence, he is liable to be evicted on this ground.
3. In the counter filed by the tenant / respondent, the following are averred:-
1. Earlier, this respondent was tenant on oral lease from one M.Chickaiyan Naicker, on 110. 1996, for a monthly rent of 150/-. The petitioners inherited the demised building. The respondent continued to pay the rent and thereafter, the Registered Deed dated 30.05.1996 was entered into. The petitioners agreed to repair the godown and promised to lease out the extreme southern portion of godown measuring an area of 20 x 10 for additional accommodation of the business stocks of the respondent. The godown was constructed in or about the year 1936. The roof is covered with zinc sheet. There is no alteration of the zinc sheet ever since 1936. Due to rust, there are holes in the roof of the godown, through which there is leakage of rain water during rainy season. The roof of the front portion is covered with Calicut tiles.
3. 2. In the course of his tenure of tenancy, when the respondent was a tenant of Smt.Krishnammal, the broken calicut tiles were replaced and the front shutter was put up and partition wall was raised between the godown and the front portion where the respondent is keeping his office and displaying sample hardwares etc, at his own costs. The floor of the godown gets damaged. It is stated that neither the said M.Chickaiya Naicker nor his wife Krishnammal had repaired the demised building during their lifetime in spite of so many requests made to them by the respondent. The respondent had reposed faith in the petitioners and believed bona fide that they would keep up their promise in repairing the demised building and leasing out the additional portion of an area of 20 x 10.
3. 3. As agreed by the landlord, the respondent had been paying the rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from 012. 1995 to 29.05.2001. In spite of so many requests by the respondent, the petitioners had not cared either to repair the demised building nor to extend the lease-hold portion. But on the other hand, the petitioners had closed the door and windows provided in the partition wall from east to west that divides the southern and northern godown port
