Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 2820
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. KUMARESH BABU, J.
Mrs. Alima Bee – Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Razia Sultana Waqf Alal Aulad (P) Trust, Rep.By Its Trustees – Respondent
CRP No. 2573 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.19115 of 2021
Decided On : 08-07-2026
For the Petitioners: Mr. P. Sivamani
For the Respondents: Mr. K.P. Ashok
The creation of a landlord-tenant relationship is verified through pleadings and documentary evidence. Where such relationship exists, failure to provide proof of alternate payment arrangements and a consistent refusal or inability to pay monthly rent constitutes wilful default, justifying an order for eviction.
Headnote:(A) Rent Control Laws - Eviction - Wilful default in payment of rent - Relationship between occupant and owner.
(B) Landlord-tenant relationship - Where parties admit the original induction of an occupant as a tenant, subsequent claims of being a mere licensee are legally inconsistent and untenable. (Paras 13, 15)
(C) Wilful default in rent payment - Absence of documentary evidence to refute rental arrears or substantiate alleged daily payment arrangements confirms the occurrence of persistent default. (Paras 16, 17, 20)
(D) Revision jurisdiction - Findings of fact regarding the jural relationship and the existence of default, when sustained by pleadings and evidence, do not warrant appellate interference. (Paras 35, 36)
Facts of the case:
An owner filed for eviction based on wilful default in the payment of monthly rent. The occupants contested the petition, asserting that their occupation was not that of tenants but of licensees paying daily fees. The lower courts examined the admissions in the pleadings and documentation, concluding that the original induction into the premises was a tenancy, which continued through the occupants' predecessors. The occupants failed to produce proof of regular daily payments and defaulted on monthly rent obligations.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the evidence, including documents acknowledging the occupancy and the failure of the occupants to prove the alleged license arrangement, established a landlord-tenant relationship. The court determined that the substantial arrears accumulated over several years, without substantiation of alternative payment methods, constituted wilful default, justifying the eviction order.
Issues: Whether a landlord-tenant relationship exists despite claims of licensee status, and whether failure to pay monthly rent constitutes wilful default under the relevant rent control legislation.
Ratio Decidendi: Once an occupancy's nature is established as a tenancy through pleadings and documents, it cannot be legally reclassified as a license. The inability to produce evidence of systematic rent payments or clear the arrears, as directed by the court, confirms wilful default, providing the required legal basis for ordering eviction.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
ORDER :
K. KUMARESH BABU, J.
This petition has been filed under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act seeking eviction of the respondents/tenants on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent.
2. The Petitioner/landlord stated that 1st petitioner herein is a Private trust, represented by trustees 2nd, 3rd and 4th. The first petitioner is purely a private trust formed only for the benefit of the propounder’s. The respondents herein were tenants, in respect of non-residential first floor portion bearing Hall No.8 (Chicken Shop) situated at Door No.82, PonnappaMudali Street, Purasawalkam, Chennai– 600 007, which bearing Corporation Door No.23, Purasaiwalkam High Road, Chennai – 7, on monthly rent of Rs.2000/- excluding electricity charges. The respondents/tenant has deliberately neglected to pay rent from March 2002 onwards inspite of repeated demands and due a sum of Rs.62,000/- from March 2002 till September 2004 at rate of Rs.2000/- and Even though notice sent was received by respondent/tenant, neither sent a reply nor paid arrears of rent, & thereby committed wilful default and liable to be evicted from premises.
3. The respondents 2 to 4 filed a counter denying the allegation that they were tenants in respect of the non-residential first floor portion bearing Hall No.8 (Chicken Shop) situated at Door No.82, PonnappaMudali Street, Purasawalkam, Chennai–84, on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-.According to the respondents/tenant, the original tenant was one Mohammed Jani Sahib, husband of the 2nd respondent and father of respondents 3 and 4, who had been inducted as tenant in respect of three portions in the premises bearing Door No.82, PonnappaMudali Street, Purasawalkam, Chennai–84, namely one portion on the ground floor, another on the first floor, and a fish stall on daily rent basis. It was their specific case that the rent lastly paid was Rs.118/- per day and not Rs.2,000/- per month as alleged by the petitioners/landlord.
4. The respondents/tenant further contended that the said Mohammed Jani Sahib died on 08.04.2000 and that during his lifetime respondents 3 and 4 had been assisting their father in the business. It was further stated that Mohammed Jani Sahib, during his lifetime, had executed a Power of Attorney Deed dated 26.02.1999 appointing the 2nd respondent as his agent to administer and manage the business and the petition premises and that thereafter the business continued to be managed by the 2nd respondent with the assistance of respondents 3 and 4 and that one Mr. Anwar Bai and Mr. Abubakkar Bai, agents of the petitioners/landlord, used to collect the daily rent from the respondents/tenant and that rent had been regularly paid till 29.11.2004. According to the respondents/tenants, there was no practice of issuing receipts for rent payments. Upon coming to know about the pendency of the RCOP proceedings.
5. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings, oral evidence and documentary evidence adduced on either side, found that there was no dispute with regard to the existence of landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. The principal dispute that arose for consideration was whether the tenancy was on monthly rent basis, as contended by the petitioners/landlord, or on daily rent basis, as contended by the respondents/tenant.
6. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1 and the documents marked as Exs.P1 to P4, accepted the case of the petitioners/landlord that the petition premises had been let out on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. The Court found that the respondents/tenant failed to substantiate their plea that the tenancy was on daily rent basis at Rs.118/- per day. The Court further observed that no acceptable documentary evidence had been produced by the respondents/tenant to prove payment of daily rent or to establish the alleged arrangement pleaded by them. The Trial Court further found that the premises had originally been let out to one Moh
