SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 3138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
Mr. S. Kamalakannan, - Appellant
Versus
Mr. Hari krishna, S/o. Mr. Ilango – Respondent
C.R.P.(PD) No.169 of 2021
Decided on : 24-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.K. Varadhakamaraj

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 – Article 227 - Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenants Act, 2017 - Section 21(2)(b), and 21(2)(g) - Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 – Section 41 and 43 - Suit for recovery of immovable property – Eviction - Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that petitioners have filed unnumbered R.L.T.O.P. under section 21(2)(b), and 21(2)(g) of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenants Act, 2017 before the Principal District with prayer (a) to pass order for eviction underground of wilful default in monthly rent and owner's occupation and (b) direct respondent to vacate and hand over vacant possession of petition schedule mentioned property to the petitioners – Held, According to which applying under Section 41(2) of the Act 1997, Rent Controller after treating the aforesaid petition as a suit, rightly directed petitioners to pay Court Fee in accordance with Section 43(2) of TNCF Act, 1955 since in a suit for recovery of immovable property from a tenant including a tenant holding over after determination of a tenancy, fee shall be computed on premium, if any, and on rent payable for year next before date of presenting the plaint - Further, if learned counsel for the petitioner would not take into account of 2nd prayer in petition and the rental agreement expires, he contended relying on Section 41(3), petition filed by him to be treated as of an Interlocutory - Application, however, as regard 2nd prayer of petition, petition would be treated as a suit under section 41(2) of the Act - In view of the aforesaid discussions and observations, this Court do not find any fault in directions of Court below to pay Court Fee under Section 43(2) of TNCF Act and is not inclined to interfere with Docket order of the Court below made in RLTOP - In the result, Revision petition stands dismissed.

ORDER :

1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order passed by the Principal District Munsiff at Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056 in R.L.T.O.P. Sr. No.787 of 2020 in Unnumbered-R.L.T.O.P dated 07.11.2020 and consequently, direct the Principal District Munsiff at Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056 to number the R.L.T.O.P. Sr. No.787 of 2020.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have filed unnumbered R.L.T.O.P. under section 21(2)(b), and 21(2)(g) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenants Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") before the Principal District Munsiff, Poonamallee, with the prayer (a) to pass order for eviction under the ground of wilful default in monthly rent and owner's occupation and (b) direct the respondent to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of petition schedule mentioned property to the petitioners. The Court below has returned the aforesaid petition by Docket order dated 11.02.2020 stating the reasons that the Court fee has to be complied with under Section 43 of Tamilnadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 2017 since Rental Agreement will expiry on 31.01.2021. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner has represented the petition on 17.02.2020 stating as under:

    "1. The petitioner humbly submits that, as per the new amendment Section 41 of Tamilnadu Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1955 and amended Act 2002 and 2017 is applicable to the present case and the Section 43 of Tamilnadu Court Fees and suit Valuation Act, 1955 and amended Act 2002 and 2017 is not applicable to the present case.

2. The petitioner humbly submits that as per the Court Fees under the Tamilnadu Regulations of Rights and Responsibilities of Land Lords and Tenants Act 2017, the fixed Court Fees is Rs.15/- per Section, two Section Rs.30/- paid by the petitioner and same is correct.

3. The Petitioner humbly submits that even though the Rental Agreement is expired on 31.01.2021, the Respondent/Tenant have not paid the Rent to Petitioners/Land Lords ever since inception of tenancy and the Respondent/Tenant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,67,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Sixty Seven Thousand Only) as on 31.01.2020. Further the legal notice dated 20.10.2019 it clearly mentioned that the Respondent/Tenant is defaulted monthly rent and 30 days time was given to the Respondent/Tenant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the tenancy premises from the date of receipt of the legal notice.

4. The petitioner humbly submits that as per unregistered vacant site rental agreement dated 01.02.2018 between the petitioners 1 and 2 and the respondent, the conditions in clause 4, if any default in paying monthly rents for 3 consecutive months, the vacant site Rental agreement comes to an end. In present case the respondent/tenant from the inception of tenancy is defaulting monthly rent. Therefore, the present RLTOP case is maintainable in law."

After having represented the aforesaid petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein, the same was returned again on 31.08.2020 for not complying the previous directions by granting one month time to comply with the same. Subsequent to the above, the learned counsel once again represented the petition before the Court below on 16.10.2020 seeking for to consider the aforesaid elaborate explanation submitted by him on 17.02.2020. Following to the above representation made by the petitioner, the learned Principal District Munsif passed an Docket order dated 07.11.2020 as under:

    "The petition was filed by the petitioner for order of eviction and direct the respondent to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of petition schedule property to the petitioner.

This Court returned the petition to pay the Court fee under Section 43 of Tamilnadu Court fee and Suit Valuation Act. Whereas, the learned counsel for the petitioner represente

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top