Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3123
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA
Kuppusamy
Versus
Surajbai
C.R.P. NPD. No. 2324 of 2012 & M.P. No. 1 of 2012
Decided on : 20-07-2012
For the Petitioner:C.K.M. Appaji, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Shah & Shah, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once the tenant accepts the fair rent without challenging it through legal channels, finality is established, and the tenant is obligated to pay the enhanced fair rent.
Headnote:
wilful default - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Section 10(2)(i) - [Section 10(2)(i)] - The court discussed the issue of wilful default in paying rents under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The key legal provision of Section 10(2)(i) was interpreted in the context of the tenant's obligation to pay fair rent and the landlord's pursuit of enhancement of fair rent. The court emphasized that once the tenant accepted the fair rent and did not challenge it through the appropriate legal channels, it would be considered final and the tenant should pay the enhanced fair rent. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of this provision and the tenant's failure to challenge the fair rent determination.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a petition for eviction based on wilful default in paying rents. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition, but the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the decision and ordered eviction. The tenant filed a civil revision petition challenging the eviction order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant's failure to pay the fair rent, which was fixed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the appellate authority, amounted to wilful default. The court held that the tenant's acceptance of the fair rent without challenging it through legal channels established finality, and the tenant was obligated to pay the enhanced fair rent.
Issues: The issues included whether the pendency of the landlord's petition for enhancement of fair rent would excuse the tenant from paying the fair rent, whether non-payment of fair rent constituted wilful default, and whether there was any illegality in the appellate authority's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the tenant's obligation to pay fair rent and the finality of the fair rent determination. The court emphasized that the tenant's acceptance of the fair rent without legal challenge established finality and the obligation to pay the enhanced fair rent.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed, and the court granted the tenant six months to vacate the premises, subject to paying past and future arrears of rent without default.
1. Animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 26.3.2012 passed by the VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.C.A.No.826 of 2007 confirming the order dated 28.9.2007 passed by the XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.C.O.P.No.1994 of 2006, this civil revision petition is filed.
2. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:
(i) The respondent herein/landlord filed the RCOP No.1994 of 2006, invoking Section 10 (2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, on the ground of 'wilful default' in paying the rents. The matter was resisted.
(ii) Whereupon the Rent Controller conducted enquiry. The Power of Attorney of the landlord-Jagadesh Prasad examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. The tenant examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 and marked Exs.R1 to R3.
(iii) Ultimately, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition.
(iv) Whereupon appeal RCA No.826 of 2007 was filed. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, after hearing both sides, reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and held that there was 'wilful default' in paying the rents and accordingly ordered eviction.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of eviction, this civil revision has been filed by the tenant on various grounds.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant, mainly placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his arguments, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:
(i) This is not a case as though the agreed rent was refused to be paid and that there was wilful default.
(ii) This is a peculiar case, in which the landlord invoked the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller on the ground that the fair rent, which was fixed by the Rent Controller, was not paid by the tenant in favour of the landlord, even though finality had not been achieved in fixing the fair rent. Still the CRP relating to fixation of fair rent filed by the landlord is pending before this Court.
(iii) The present RCOP No.1994 of 2006 was filed when CRP relating to fixation of fair rent was pending before this Court. As such, the learned Rent Controller appropriately and appositely held that there was no wilful default in paying the rents. However, the appellate authority, without au fait with law simply held as though the difference between the agreed rent and fair rent was not paid and that it amounted to wilful default and accordingly ordered eviction warranting interference in revision
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent herein/landlord in a bid to extirpate and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the tenant, would develop his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:
(i) This is a case in which, the tenant, after fixation of fair rent by the Rent Controller, simply kept quiet and he never filed any RCA and obviously no revision also was filed. However, it was the landlord, who agitated as against the low fixation of fair rent by filing the RCA.
(ii) In the RCA the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller was confirmed. However, it was the landlord, who further took it on CRP and it is pending.
(iii) By no stretch of imagination it could be said that finality had not been achieved relating to the fixation of fair rent, because so far the tenant is concerned, he accepted the fixation of fair rent of Rs.2942/- per month and in such a case, he ought to have started paying it.
(iv) No doubt, during the pendency of the RCA filed by the landlord for enhancement of fixation of fair rent, the present R.C.O.P. was filed on the ground of wilful default in paying the fair rent and that would not in any way be taken advantage of, by the tenant for refraining from paying the fair rent.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would submit that there is nothing to find fault with the appellate Court's order and pray
