Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2956
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
R. Baskaran - Petitioner
Vs.
M.K.Thangavelu & Ors. - Respondents
CRP(NPD)Nos.3940, 3941 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012
Decided On : 23-10-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s. S.L. Kalavathy
For the Respondents: Mr. T.P. Kathiravan
The main legal point established is that the person filing Rent Control Proceedings must have the authority to do so as a landlord or a recognized agent, and allegations of default in rental payments must be substantiated.
Headnote:
Rent Control - Landlord Tenant Dispute - Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Proceedings Act, 1960 - Sections 2(6), 10(2)(i), 10(2)(vii), 10(3)(a)(iii), 9(3), 11(3), 29, Order 3 Rule 1 of CPC
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed Rent Control Proceedings for eviction against the tenant. The tenant disputed the landlord-tenant relationship and alleged harassment. The Rent Controller dismissed the case, but the Appellate Judge allowed the appeal based on alleged rental arrears.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, who filed the Rent Control Proceedings, did not have the right to maintain the case as he was not the landlord or a power agent. The court also found that there was no default in rental payments as alleged by the landlord.
Issues: Dispute over landlord-tenant relationship, alleged harassment, authority to file Rent Control Proceedings, and default in rental payments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner did not have the right to maintain the case as he was not the landlord or a power agent. The court also found that there was no default in rental payments as alleged by the landlord.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were allowed, setting aside the orders passed in the Rent Control Proceedings and the Appellate Court's decision. The court found in favor of the tenant, dismissing the landlord's claims.
1. The tenant is the Civil Revision Petitioner before this Court, challenging the order in RCA.No.561 of 2009, on the file of the learned VIIIth Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority).
2. It is the case of the respondent/landlord is that the respondent has let out the petition premises to the petitioner in the year 1991, the petitioner who is the tenant in the petition premises for Non-residential purpose a portion of the Ground floor on monthly rent of Rs.850/- from 16.07.1991 and the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as advance amount for the tenancy portion. Later on, the rent amount was enhanced to Rs.1,800/-.
3. It is the further case of the landlord is that the tenant has been making payment of rental amount of Rs1,800/- per month with electricity charges Rs.30/- per month till may 2004 accepting the respondent is the landlord and the lawful owner of the petition premises. The landlord has filed the Rent Control Proceedings in RCOP.No.1840 of 2004 for eviction against the tenant under Sections 10(2)(i) 10(2)(vii) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, but the said RCOP.No.1840 of 2004 was dismissed on the ground that the petition premises has notified as slum area as the landlord should have taken prior permission from the Tamil Nadu Sulm Clearance Board before filing RCOP as per tanant’s contention. After the dismissal of the RCOP.No.1840 of 2004, the landlord has verified the fact from the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and came to know that the petition premises was not notified as slum area by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board and therefore, the landlord has filed an appeal in RCA.No.90 of 2007 and the same is pending.
4. The tenant has filed a Rent control proceedings in RCOP.No.1208 of 2004, under Section 9(3) of the Act against the landlord disputing the landlord and the tenant relationship. When the said RCOP.No.1208 of 2004 was dismissed on 22.11.2004 by the learned XIIIth Judge, Small causes Court, Chennai, holding that the respondent is a landlord and the petitioner is the tenant and the said order, the learned XIIIth Judge, directed the tenant to pay the rental arrears since June 2004 onwards and thereafter the tenant has sent a cheque on 08.08.2005 for a sum of Rs.21,600/- towards the rental arrears from June 2004 to may 2005.
5. It is the further case of the landlord is that the tenant asked the landlord to deduct the advance amount of Rs.15,000/- for the month of June to December 2005 along with the electricity Bill charges and the same were also adjusted, thereafter, the tenant has sent a cheques for the period from January 2007 to July 2007 at the rate of Rs.1830/- The respondent s daughter, who is one of the owner of the petition premises has sent letters on 22.01.2007, 19.02.2007, 22.03.2007, 30.04.2007, 31.05.2007, 20.06.2007 and 27.07.2007 with the rental receipts mentioning the default of rental arrears for the last 12 months and the same was received by the tenant, but there is no reply has been given till date.
6. It is further case of the landlord is that the tenant has sent one empty cover by RPAD on 08.08.2007 for which the landlord has told over by phone about the empty cover sent to the landlord, there is no proper reply from the tenant and informed the landlord to take the legal action against him. The landlord further states that the tenant has sent a letter dated 11.01.2007 alleging that the tenant has paid a sum of Rs.35,000/- as pagadi to the petition premises at the time of lease out the premises and the landlord has adjusted the same form the rental arrears. The landlord has replied on 22.01.2007, that no pagadi amount received by the landlord except the advance amount of Rs.15,000/- and the same was adjusted towards the rental arrears as per request made by the respondent, but there was no re-joinder from the tenant with documentary evidence as on date.
7. The landlord further states that on 23.08.2007, the tenant has issued a cheque for Rs.1,830/- whi
