2008 Supreme(Mad) 518
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
J.M. Reddy Cars rep. by its Partner
Versus
P.B. Mythili
C.R.P.(NPD).No1710 of 2006
Decided on : 13-02-2008
For the Petitioner:P.L. Narayanan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P.B. Sampath Kumar, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that wilful default in payment of rent requires deliberate and intentional non-payment, and the presence of a valid notice demanding arrears of rent is essential to establish wilful default.
Headnote:
wilful default - Rent Control - Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a), 10(2)(v), 10(3)(a)(iii) - The court discussed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act and the interpretation of wilful default in payment of rent. The court referred to relevant case laws and highlighted the requirement of a valid notice demanding arrears of rent and the deliberate and intentional nature of wilful default.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a petition for eviction under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a), 10(2)(v), 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, alleging wilful default in payment of rent by the tenant. The tenant contested, claiming no wilful default and citing payments made and notices issued.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant's default in payment of rent was not wilful due to lack of a valid notice demanding arrears of rent, and allowed the revision petition, setting aside the previous judgment and dismissing the eviction petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the tenant's default in payment of rent amounted to wilful default under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that wilful default requires deliberate and intentional non-payment of rent, and the absence of a valid notice demanding arrears of rent precluded the finding of wilful default.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was allowed, the previous judgment was set aside, and the eviction petition was dismissed.
This revision petition has been directed against the order passed in R.C.A.No.656 of 2005 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority/VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The tenant in R.C.O.P.No.861 of 2004 on the file of XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai/Rent Controller who had lost his defence before the Courts below is the revision petitioner herein.
2. R.C.O.P.No.861 of 2004 was filed by the landlord under Sections 10(2)(i),10(2)(ii)(a), 10(2)(v) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act (Hereinafter referred to "the Act"). The learned Rent Controller/XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, has allowed the petition on two grounds. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant has preferred an appeal in R.C.A.NO.656 of 2005 before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority/VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai who had confirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller in respect of an order of eviction under Section 10(2) (i) of the Act alone and allowed the appeal thereby setting aside the findings of the learned Rent Controller under Sections 10(2)(ii) (a), 10(2)(v), 10(3)(a)(iii). Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenant has approached before this Court by way of this revision petition.
3. According to the landlord, the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent for the month of September 2003. According to the landlord, R.C.O.P.was filed on 19,.4.2004. The said petition was resisted by the tenant on the ground that as per the lease agreement, the monthly rent for the petition schedule building is Rs.5000/- and the tenant at the time of inception of tenancy had paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the landlord towards advance and that there was no wilful default in payment of rent and the tenant had paid the rent of Rs.6,000/-through a cheque bearing No.935740 dated 11. 2003 and he would further allege that apart from the advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, another sum of Rs.12,000/-was paid to Mr.P.B,.Raghunathan, the son of the landlord and also deliver a computer worth Rs.40,000/-and has also incurred Rs.2,10,000/- towards maintenance of the building. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent and that the tenant cannot ask the landlord to adjust the advance amount towards the arrears of rent.
4. It is seen from Ex R4 statement of account produced on the side of the tenant that the rent due for the month of September 2003 has been paid by way of cheque bearing No.935686 dated 110. 2003. The said cheque was drawn in the name of Raghunathan, son of the landlord. From the evidence of R.W.1/tenant, it is seen that the cheque bearing No.935740 dated 11. 2003 relating to the payment of the rent for the month of October 2003 as referred to in Ex P2 was not realised by the landlord. According to R.W.1, he came to know that the cheque dated 11. 2003 was not realised from Ex P5, notice dated 212. 2003 issued by the learned counsel appearing for the landlord. According to the tenant,as R.W.1, after coming to know through Ex R5 that the cheque dated 11. 2003 being the rent due for the month of October 2003, was not realised, he had drawn another cheque in the month of August 2004 in favour of the landlord. Under Ex P10, notice, the tenant has informed the landlord that there is no wilful default in payment of rent on his part and the rent for the month of November 2003 has been paid by cheque No.935741 dated 12. 2003 and the rent for the month of December 2003 has been paid under Cheque No.976016 dated 1. 2004 and the rent due for the month of January 2004 has been paid under Cheque No.976050 dated 2. 2004 and the rent due for the month of February has been paid through Cheque No.900553 dated 3. 2004 and the rent due for the month of March 2004 has been paid under Cheque No.900604 dated 4. 2004. It has further stat