Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 198
High Court of Judicature at Madras
P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J.
K. Sakthivel
Versus
Angala Thavy @ Mumthaj Begum Thavy
C.R.P. [NPD] No. 4904 of 2012 & M.P. Nos. 1 of 2012, 1 of 2013 & 1 of 2014
Decided On : 29-01-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:G. Saravana Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P. Chandrasekar, Advocate.
The central legal point established is that the execution of an eviction order must be free from material irregularities and must not be based on contradictory stands by the landlord.
Headnote:
eviction - willful default in payment of rent - Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, Section 11(4) - R.C.O.P.No.1218 of 2006, M.P.No.112 of 2007, R.C.A.Nos.706 and 707 of 2008, E.P.No.258 of 2011 - The court discussed the eviction order passed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, the quantification of arrears of rent, the dismissal of Rent Control Appeals, and the execution petition. The court highlighted the contradictory stand taken by the landlord and the material irregularities in the execution of the eviction order.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant faced eviction for willful default in payment of rent. The landlord sought possession based on the eviction order. The tenant challenged the execution petition, citing contradictory stands taken by the landlord and material irregularities in the execution of the eviction order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the eviction order was erroneously executed and set it aside, dismissing the execution petition.
Issues: The issues involved the execution of the eviction order, contradictory stands taken by the landlord, and material irregularities in the execution process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the execution of the eviction order was erroneous and tainted with material irregularities, warranting interference.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, setting aside the order of eviction and dismissing the execution petition. The landlord was given liberty to move the Rent Control Appellate Authority with a necessary petition.
1. The tenant, who suffered an order of eviction on the ground of commission of willful default in payment of rent in R.C.O.P.No.1218 of 2006 on the file of the learned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, is the petitioner in the present civil revision petition.
2. The revision is directed against the order of the Executing Court dated 21.12.2012 made in E.P.No.258 of 2011 directing delivery of vacant possession of the property to the respondent herein/landlord in accordance with the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.
3. While admitting the Civil Revision Petition, this Court granted an order of interim stay in M.P.No.1 of 2012. The respondent in the Civil Revision Petition/landlord has come forward with M.P.No.1 of 2013 for vacating the order of interim stay. This matter stands listed today for considering the miscellaneous petitions for stay and vacating stay. Yet another petition in M.P.No.1 of 2014 also has been filed by the landlord for permission to withdraw the arrears of rent deposited by the revision petitioner/tenant. So far as M.P.No.1 of 2014 is concerned, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner/tenant cannot have and does not have any objection for granting the permission sought for. Hence, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is allowed and the petitioner therein, who is the respondent in the Civil Revision Petition, is permitted to withdraw the arrears of rent deposited by the revision petitioner/tenant to the credit of R.C.O.P.No.1218 of 2006 on the file of the XI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
4. Regarding M.P.Nos.1 of 2012 and 1 of 2013, instead of passing orders disposing of the said miscellaneous petitions, this Court expressed a view that the Civil Revision Petition itself could be disposed of as the issue involved in the Civil Revision Petition is a technical issue. The learned counsel appearing for both parties consented for taking up the Civil Revision Petition itself. Accordingly, by consent, the Civil Revision Petition itself is taken up for disposal.
5. The arguments advanced by Mr.G.Saravana Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.P.Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the respondent in the revision petition are heard. The materials available on record are also perused.
6. R.C.O.P.No.1218 of 2006 was filed by the respondent herein for eviction of the revision petitioner on the ground of willful default. The jural relationship of landlord and tenant between them is not in dispute. Pending disposal of the R.C.O.P., the respondent herein/landlord filed an application under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 as M.P.No.112 of 2007 for quantifying the arrears of rent, for a direction to the tenant to pay the arrears of rent and in case of default, to strike off the defence and pass an order of eviction. The learned Rent Controller quantified the arrears of rent and issued a direction by order dated 11.06.2007. The revision petitioner/tenant failed to comply with the order, resultantly, the defence in the R.C.O.P. was struck off and an order of eviction came to be passed on 28.06.2007.
7. As against the order passed in M.P.No.112 of 2007 and the consequential eviction order passed in R.C.O.P., the revision petitioner preferred R.C.A.Nos.706 and 707 of 2008 respectively. During the pendency of the said R.C.As., the respondent herein/landlord filed a memo informing the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the lis had come to an end because the tenant had vacated the premises and handed over vacant possession of the same to the respondent herein/landlord. Though the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority wanted to verify the correctness of the said representation, the revision petitioner failed to appear in the R.C.As., pursuant to which, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeals based on the memo filed by the respondent herein holding that nothing remains to be adjudicated upon, a
