Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 683
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
South India Vaniar Educational Trust Rep. by its Secretary, Triplicane - Petitioner
Versus
Broad Lands, Rep. by its Proprietor A.P. Kumar (deceased) & Others - Respondent
C.R.P.(NPD).No. 2655 of 2013
Decided On : 12-04-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:A. Palaniappan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Om Prakash, Senior Counsel, G. Veerapathiran, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for default to be considered willful, it must be intentional, deliberate, calculative, and conscious with true knowledge of the legal consequences. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of complying with court directions regarding rent payments.
Headnote:
Willful Default - Rent Control - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Section 115 of C.P.C. - 11(3) - 11(2) - 10(2)(i) - 10(2)(i)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition seeking to set aside the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the dismissal of the eviction petition against the respondents for willful default in paying the fair rent fixed by the High Court. The respondents were tenants of a non-residential premises and had failed to pay the fair rent as per the High Court's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the fair rent fixed by the High Court reached finality only on 4.8.2003, and the eviction petition was based on the alleged willful default in non-payment of the fair rent as per the High Court's orders. The court held that the tenant's conduct did not amount to willful default, as the fair rent had not been quantified at the time of the alleged default, and the tenant had deposited the entire arrears as per the court's direction.
Issues: The main issue was whether the tenant's failure to pay the fair rent fixed by the High Court constituted willful default, and whether the fair rent had reached finality at the time of the alleged default.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for default to be willful, it must be intentional, deliberate, calculative, and conscious with true knowledge of the legal consequences. The court also emphasized that the fair rent had not been quantified at the time of the alleged default, and the tenant had complied with the court's directions by depositing the entire arrears.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set aside the fair and decreetal order made in R.C.A.No.1246 of 2004 dated 15.12.2012 on the file of the VII Rent Control Appellate Authority Chennai confirming the fair and decreetal order made in RCOP No.738 of 2000 dated 17.09.2004 by the XII Judge, Court of Small Causes cum Rent Controller, Chennai and to allow the revision.)
1. Aggrieved over the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Controller who dismissed the petition filed for evicting the respondents from the petition premises for wilful default the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
2. The brief facts leading to file this Revision Petition is as follows:
2(a) The respondents are the tenants under the Petitioner in respect of a non-residential premises bearing No.16, Vallaba Agaraharam, Triplicane, Chennai for running a lodging house under the name and style of 'Broadlands'. The rent payable by the respondents is fixed at Rs.14,027/-per month by a common order dated 9.1.1998 in C.R.P.Nos.794, 2440 and 2441 of 1993 as modified by the Common order dated 19.4.1999 in CMP.Nos.3250 to 3252 of 1999. The fair rent fixed is payable with effect from 1.11.1982 being the date of presentation of RCOP No.5031 of 1982. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the C.R.Ps against the fair rent were disposed off by the High Court by a Common Order dated 9.1.1988 wherein the decree of the Appellate Authority was modified to the extent that the built up area in the ground floor was fixed at 7613 sq.ft. as against 6482 sq.ft. and the vacant appurtenant land was fixed at 3408 sq.ft. as against 2217 sq.ft. The depreciation value was fixed at 10% on the value of the construction of the building. On the basis of the findings, a simple arithmetic calculation will show that the fair rent payable is Rs.14,027/- per month. But the respondent claiming that the fair rent fixed by the Appellate Authority was set aside by order dated 9.1.1998 started paying rent at the rate of Rs.792/- from 1.5.1998 Therefore, the default on the part of the respondents in payment of rent at the rate of Rs.14027/- from 1.5.1998 is willful and deliberate.
2(b) Thereafter, in C.M.P.No.3250 to 3252 of 1999 in CRPs for modification, by order dated 19.4.1998 the High Court was pleased to declare that the fair rent at Rs.14027. The above order has become final. Even after the said modified order dated 19.4.1999 the respondents failed to tender fair rent at the rate of Rs.14027/-. The failure to pay rent at the rate of Rs.14,027/- per month for the petition premises from 1.5.1998 is willful and deliberate. Hence, the petitioner issued legal notice on 6.1.2000 demanding payment of arrears of difference rent at the rate of Rs.14027/- from 1.11.1982 to 31.12.1999. But the respondents failed to comply with the same, but remitted the arrears at the rate of Rs.792/- only from 1.5.1998. Even after the expiry of two months from the date of demand made by notice the default on the part of the Respondents in payment of rent for the period from 1.5.1998 to 31.12.1999 is willful and deliberate. Hence, the application for eviction.
3. It is the contention of the respondent in their counter that in RCOP No.5031 of 1982 fair rent was fixed at Rs.9026/-. The said order was challenged in RCA No.465 of 1985 and the appellate authority after hearing the case re-fixed the fair rent at Rs.9090/-. The order of the appellate authority is not a final order. The respondent filed CRP No.2440 and 2441 of 1993. During the pendency of CRP the order fixing the fair rent has not become final, the petitioner filed C.S.No.106 of 1995 for recovery of Rs.10,62,144/- being the difference in rent even before the final adjudication. Pursuant to the order passed in C.S.No.106 of 1995 the respondent has been regularly depositing a sum of Rs.9090/- per month from 1.1.1996 to the credit of R.C.O.P.No.5031 of 1982. The said payments were
