Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3240
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA
National Insurance Co. Ltd & Another
Versus
P. Karunambigai & Another
C.R.P. (NPD). No. 2045 of 2012 & M.P. No. 1 of 2012
Decided on : 25-07-2012
For the Petitioners:N. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:A.K. Kumarasamy, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that deliberate and intentional default is necessary for wilful default in paying rent, and landlords have the right to seek eviction for personal occupation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act.
Headnote:
wilful default - eviction - Section 10(2)(i), Section 10(3)(iii) - (2000)3 SUPREME COURT CASES 282, 2002(4) CTC 572 - The court discussed the concept of wilful default in paying rent and the requirement of additional accommodation for personal use by the landlords under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act. The court emphasized the need for deliberate and intentional default for wilful default and upheld the landlords' right to seek eviction for personal occupation.
Fact of the Case:
The landlords filed for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of wilful default in paying rent and personal occupation. The tenant contested the matter, arguing that the settlement before the Lok Adalat obviated the cause of action for eviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlement before the Lok Adalat did not obviate the cause of action for eviction based on wilful default. It also upheld the landlords' bona fide requirement for additional accommodation for personal use.
Issues: The issues revolved around the effect of the settlement before the Lok Adalat on the cause of action for eviction and the landlords' bona fide requirement for additional accommodation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that deliberate and intentional default is required for wilful default in paying rent. It also affirmed the landlords' right to seek eviction for personal occupation under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed, and the tenant was granted six months to vacate and hand over possession to the landlords, subject to payment of past arrears of rent and future rent.
1. Animadverting upon the order dated 04.04.2012 passed in RCA No.1 of 2011, by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Erode confirming the order dated 03.12.2010 passed in RCOP No.7 of 2007 by the Rent Controller, Principal District Munsif, Erode, this civil revision petition is focussed.
2. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
The respondents/landlords filed initially the RCOP invoking Section 10(2)(i) of the Act, on the ground of wilful default in paying rent by the revision petitioner/tenant. Pendentelite the RCOP was got amended, so as to include one other ground, namely personal occupation by invoking Section 10(3) (iii). The matter was contested.
3. During enquiry, on the side of the landlords/respondents, Balasubramaniam examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. On the side of the tenant/petitioner, one Venkatasubramaniam examined himself as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R8 were marked.
4. Ultimately the Rent Controller ordered eviction, as against which the tenant preferred appeal for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court, confirming the judgment of the trial Court.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order and judgment of both the Courts below, this revision has been filed on various grounds.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would pilot his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:
(a) Both the Courts below fell into error in not taking note of the fact that before the Lok Adalat the matter relating to arrears of rent was settled and the amount also was paid by the tenant and accepted by the landlords, which had the effect of obliterating the cause of action on their part to seek eviction on the ground of wilful default in paying rent by the tenant.
(b) Already out of the two portions of the demised premises referred to originally in the RCOP, the rear portion had already been handed over to the landlords. However, the front portion alone is under the occupation of the tenant and therefore there are no bona fides on the part of the landlords in seeking eviction of that premises. The rear portion which had been surrendered by the tenant in favour of the landlords would be sufficient for running their Advocate office.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the tenant would pray for setting aside the orders of both the Courts below and for dismissing the RCOP.
7. In a bid to extirpate and torpedo the arguments and pleas as put forth on the side of the tenant, the learned counsel for the landlords would pilot his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:
(a) The landlords are husband and wife and they are practising law in the locality where the demised premises is situated. In fact, the father of the first petitioner is also a lawyer and as such, they belong to a family of lawyers having number of juniors to be looked after. While so, their demand for the front portion also for setting up their Advocate office could never be described or labelled as one actuated by malice or malafide intention. It is not for the tenant to dictate terms that the landlords should restrict their requirements.
(b) Simply because before the Lok Adalat the tenants paid the arrears, it would not obliterate the cause of action which existed as on the date of the filing of the RCOP. There is nothing to indicate that there was such commitment by the landlords in favour of the tenants before the Lok Adalat.
(c) In fact, the parties approached the Lok Adalat purely for the purpose of getting the Court fee refunded as even before approaching the Lok Adalat they got the matter settled and the tenants agreed to pay the arrears also.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the landlords, would pray that absolutely there is no perversity or illegality in the orders passed by
