IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.07. 2023 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP. Nos. 1150 & 1151 of 2016

1.Marvel signs

2.Ramkumar

3.Senthilkumar ...Petitioners in both CRPs Vs.

1.B.Susheela (Died)

(R1 died vide order Court dated 18.01.2017 by RMJ made in CRP NPD

1150 & 1151 of 2016 in memo Sr.No. 540 and 541 of 2017)

2.R.Sunitha

3.B.B.Rajkumar ...Respondents in both CRPs PRAYER in RCOP NO. 1150 of 2016 : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order and decreetal order in R.C.A NO. 69 of 2014 by the Appellate Authority, Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, dated 22.07.2015 confirming the order in R.C.O.P No. 89 of 2012 by the learned Rent Controller, Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore dated 06.03.2014 by allowing the revisions.

PRAYER in RCOP NO. 1151 of 2016 : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order and decreetal order in R.C.A NO. 68 of 2014 by the Appellate Authority, Principal Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, dated 22.07.2015 confirming the order in R.C.O.P No. 89 of 2012 by the learned Rent Controller, Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore dated 06.03.2014 by allowing the revisions.

For Petitioners : Mr.K.J.Parthasarathy in both CRPs R1 : Died For R2 & R3 : Mr.R.Bharathkumar in both CRPs

COMMON ORDER

The revision petitioners herein are the tenant in RCOP No.89 of

2012 filed by the first respondent herein/land lord seeking to evict the tenants under the ground that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent and also the building is seventy years old needs immediate demolition and re-construction. Further, land lord also obtained necessary plan approval from the corporation. Thereafter, notice issued on 07.01.2012 by terminating lease agreement and called upon the tenant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession for which the tenant failed to comply. Hence the land lord filed petition for evict the tenant but the tenant contested the proceedings by filing his objection. In the meanwhile, the land lord filed I.A 112 of 2013 under rule 11(4) of Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control)Act 1960 (in short ''rent control Act'') claiming arrears of rent for the month of August 2011 to March 2013 to the tune of Rs.1,90,000/- (19 months X Rs.10,000/- = Rs. 1,90,000/-). The tenant appeared through their counsel and admitted the land lord tenant relationship denied the allegation of land lord but they have not filed any objection for the petition filed under 11(4) of Rent Control Act. Thereafter, when the said application was reserved for orders the tenant paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by cheque dated 01.10.2013 and for remaining amount of 90,000/- they issued post dated cheque but the rent controller passed the order directing him to pay entire arrears but the same was not complied by the tenants. Hence the rent controller on 06.03.2014 struck off the defence of the tenants and order of eviction was passed in main RCOP.

2. Challenging the said findings the tenants preferred an appeal against the RCOP RCA against 68 and 69 of 2014 before the rent control Appellate Authority-cum- Principal Sub judge, Coimbatore, without depositing arrears of rent. On hearing both sides, rent controller held that tenant committed wilful default of rent and also not complied the order passed by the rent controller in Rule 11(4) of Rent ControlActthose application was dismissed by confirming order of the rent controller.

Challenging the said findings the tenant preferred this petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant submitted that the Court below failed taken note of the fact that payment of arrears of rent by the tenants in the 11(4) application and also failed to consider the request on the side of the tenant to reopen the matter to put forth defence without giving such opportunity issued order of eviction as such is totally erroneous and liable to