Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1924
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH
R. Tharani, J.
G.P. Nursery and Primary School – Appellant
Versus
V. Seethapathy – Respondent
C.R.P. (MD) No. 820 of 2019 and C.M.P. (MD) No. 4980 of 2019
Decided On : 20-05-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P. Jeesi Jeeva Priya
For the Respondent: T.C.S. Thillainayagam
Strict compliance with statutory provisions for rent deposit is necessary, and failure to do so disentitles the tenant to plead no wilful default.
Headnote:
wilful default - eviction - T.N. Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Section 8(5), 8(2) - the court discussed the provisions of Section 8(5) and 8(2) of the T.N. Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, and their interpretations in determining wilful default in payment of rent, and how the tenant's failure to follow the prescribed procedure disentitled him to plead no wilful default
Fact of the Case:
The landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the grounds of wilful default and own use. The tenant contested the eviction, claiming no wilful default and compliance with rent deposit procedures.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant's failure to follow the prescribed rent deposit procedure under Section 8(5) amounted to wilful default, and upheld the eviction order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the tenant's compliance with rent deposit procedures and the landlord's entitlement to eviction on the grounds of wilful default and own use.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tenant's failure to strictly comply with the statutory provisions for rent deposit under Section 8(5) disentitled him to plead no wilful default, leading to the eviction order.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, directing the tenant to vacate the premises within two months.
ORDER :
R. Tharani, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 04.01.2019 made in R.C.A. No. 5 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge (Rent Control Appellate Tribunal), Tirumangalam, insofar it relates to the eviction on the ground of wilful default.
2. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. The landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 7 of 2015 seeking a prayer of eviction on the ground of wilful default and for own use. The R.C.O.P. was dismissed by the Rent Controller. Against which, the landlord filed an appeal in R.C.A. No. 5 of 2017 before the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal and the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal granting relief of eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. Against which, the tenant preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
3. Brief substance of the petition in R.C.O.P. No. 7 of 2015 is as follows:
3.1. One Velusamy Servai, father of the petitioner/V. Seethapathy is the landlord and he inducted the respondent as a tenant in respect of the eastern portion of the building bearing D. No. 20 for non-residential purpose i.e. for running a Primary School in the year 2007 for a monthly rent of Rs. 3,250/- by way of a registered lease agreement, dated 22.06.2007. An advance of Rs. 20,000/- was paid and the period of lease was 5 years. The said Velusamy Servai died in the month of February - 2011 and thereafter, the petitioner was receiving the rent from the respondent through his Agent viz., Salai. Subsequently, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 9,500/- from April 2011. As the temporary recognition granted by the Government in favour of the respondent to run the School was about to expire on 30.04.2013 and since the building was necessary for the own use of the landlord for letting it out to the pilgrims and tourist on daily rental basis, the tenant has to be evicted.
3.2. During the month of January 2013, the landlord requested the tenant to vacate the premises and the tenant promised to vacate the building within May 2013, but, all of a sudden the tenant filed a suit in O.S. No. 269 of 2014, seeking permanent injunction not to evict him without due process of law. The temporary recognition granted to the petitioner tenant was cancelled by the then Chief Educational Officer by the proceedings, dated 31.01.2015. The petitioner tenant was directed to issue transfer certificates to all the students enabling them to join some other Schools. The tenant failed to pay the monthly rent from the month of February 2015 till May 2015 and hence, the tenant is liable to be vacated.
4. Brief substance of the counter in R.C.O.P. No. 7 of 2015 is as follows:
4.1. The landlord's father/Velusamy Servai leased out the suit property to the tenant on 22.06.2007 for a monthly rent of Rs. 3,250/- and the tenant was running a School in the petition mentioned property and the Government has also recognized the School and granted licence. After the death of the said Velusamy Servai the present landlord was receiving the rent. In April 2011, the landlord enhanced the rent as Rs. 9,500/- and he attempted to evict the tenant by force and therefore, the tenant filed a suit in O.S. No. 269 of 2014 and also filed an application in I.A. No. 808 of 2014 and has obtained a temporary injunction order, which is still in force.
4.2. The tenant had not committed default in payment of rent. Only at the instigation of the landlord, the Chief Educational Officer has passed an order, refusing to renew the recognition and has directed the tenant to close the School. The tenant filed an appeal on 23.03.2015, before the Director of Elementary Education, Chennai, and the appeal is pending. During the pendency of that appeal, the Education Department Officers came to the School building on 27.05.2015 and without prior notice, lock and seal the School. If the tenant is evicted, he will be put to heavy and irreparable loss and locating another building to accommodate the stu
