Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2979
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.Thamilselvi, J.
L.Ramesh and ors. - Appellants
Versus
T.Vedavalli and ors. - Respondents
SA No. 196 of 2025 and CMP No. 5668 of 2025
Decided On : 20-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. K.V.Sundararajan
Tenants must prove regular rent payments to maintain tenancy rights; failure to do so results in unauthorized occupation.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Second Appeal - Permanent injunction - The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendants, claiming unlawful interference in their tenancy. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding no evidence of rent payment and no threats from the defendants. The appellate court confirmed this finding, noting the plaintiffs' default in rent payment and lack of evidence for threats. (Paras 5, 6, 9)
(B) Tenancy Law - Rights of tenants - The court emphasized that tenants must prove regular payment of rent to maintain their status. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate consistent rent payments, leading to the conclusion that they were in unauthorized occupation. (Paras 5, 9)
(C) Evidence - Burden of proof - The plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims of interference or regular rent payments, which were critical to their case. (Paras 5, 9)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, as heirs of the original tenant, claimed they were unlawfully threatened with eviction by the defendants. The trial court found they had not paid rent since April 2017, leading to the dismissal of their suit.
Findings of Court:
The courts found that the plaintiffs had committed a wilful default in rent payment and were not entitled to the relief sought.
Issues: The main issues included whether the plaintiffs were lawful tenants and if there was any interference by the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiffs' failure to prove regular rent payments and threats justified the dismissal of their suit, affirming the principle that tenants must maintain their payment obligations.
Result: Second Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
T.V. Thamilselvi, J.
The appellants, who are the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No. 3272 of 2018, challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below rendered in A.S.No. 136 of 2023 by the XXIII Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai arising out of trial court findings rendered in O.S.No.3272 of 2018 by the XI Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, have preferred this Second Appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the suit.
3. Before the trial court, the plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants 1 and 2 stating that as the tenants, they enjoyed the suit property and paid the rent regularly. But, the landlord/defendants unlawfully caused interference and threatened them to vacate from the suit property within few days, failing which they will be thrown out from the suit property. Therefore, they have approached the court for the relief of permanent injunction not to cause interference.
4. The said suit was contested by the defendants stating that the plaintiffs are not in regular payment of rent. They have contended that from the year of 2017 onwards, they have not paid the rent, but they came forward with the present suit with false statement as if they caused interference, in fact, the defendants have not caused any such interference. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. Before the trial court, four issues were framed. On considering both oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, the trial judge dismissed the suit by holding that from April 2017 onwards there was no rent paid by the plaintiffs, thereafter, they have paid lumpsum amount of Rs.42,000/- as rent arrears for the period from April 2017 to March 2018 and that the said amount was realised before filing the suit through cheque and thereafter, they have paid rent. Therefore, they are not tenants and they are illegally occupying the suit property nor they proved that the defendants have threatened them. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.
6. Challenging the said findings, the plaintiffs have preferred an Appeal Suit in A.S.No. 136 of 2023, wherein the first appellate judge independently analysed the facts and found that father of plaintiffs was the original tenant and after his demise, the plaintiffs are occupying the suit property as tenants and paid the rent to the defendants. But, there is a default in payment of rent from April 2017 to March 2018 and also there is no evidence that defendants have threatened them by causing interference. Therefore, the first appellate judge dismissed the Appeal Suit by confirming the findings of trial judge. Challenging the said findings, the plaintiffs have preferred this Second Appeal.
7. The learned counsel for appellants prayed to set aside the concurrent findings of courts below by raising the following grounds :-
(a) The trial court failed to see that since the respondents did not come to collect the rents from April 2017, the rents were sent through cheque, which was not received. Subsequently, through a letter dated 23.04.2018 (Ex.A7) a cheque towards rent for April 2017 to March 2018 was paid. The respondents replied to the said letter vide Ex.A8, dated 26.04.2018 giving bank details of the 2nd respondent for depositing of the rents, following which the rents were deposited into the Bank account of the 2nd respondent. All these factum have been ignored by the trial court resulting in an erroneous judgment being passed.
(b) The trial court erred in coming to the conclusion that from April 2017 the rents have not been paid and that no proof has been given to show that from April 2017 onwards the rents have been paid. Ex.A6, Ex.A7, Ex.A8 and Ex.A9, which is a Bank statement would clearly show that the rents have been paid from April 2017 onwards also.
(c) The courts below had miserably failed and even ignored the admission made by the respondents both in the written statement as well as in the cross e
