IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Orders Reserved on Orders Pronounced on

28.03.2023 01.12.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP C.R.P.No.414 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.2149 of 2020 M/s. Cresent Auto Repairs and Services India Private Ltd., Rep. by its Director A.K.Abdullah, No.9, Cenotaph Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. ... Petitioner Vs.

M/s.Chennaivazh Kovilpatti Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam (Reg.No.45/1984), Rep. by its President Mr.K.Ramasamy Nadar, No.43, (18/1), Lattice Bridge Road, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. ... Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the judgment and decree made in R.C.A.No.673 of 2014 dated 09.07.2019 on the file of the learned VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai confirming the order and decretal order passed in R.C.O.P.No.1322 of 2012, dated 22.09.2014 on the file of the learned Rent Controller/XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sagadevan For Respondent : Mr.S.Packiaraj

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition had been filed seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 09.07.2019 made in R.C.A.No.673 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judge, VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai confirming the order and decretal order passed in R.C.O.P.No.1322 of 2012, dated 22.09.2014 on the file of the learned Rent Controller/XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2.The brief facts, which are necessary to decide this Civil Revision Petition, are as follows:-

2.1.The Petitioner is the tenant under the Respondent. The Respondent/

'Chennaivazh Kovilpatti Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam' is registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, having registration No.45 of 1984. The Petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the demised property in the year 1999 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,31,200/-. The Petitioner had been running authorised Maruti Car Service Station in the leased out premises. He had been regularly paying the rent. While so, the President Thiru.L.M.Krishnasamy offered to sell the property to the tenant and they entered into a sale agreement by which the Petitioner/tenant paid a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) as advance as per the sale agreement deed dated 26.09.2007 entered into between the President of the said Sangam and the Petitioner. Subsequently, there had been some misunderstanding between the Office bearers of the said Sangam. Therefore, they filed a suit in O.S.No.1059 of 2008. Due to the misunderstanding, the President of the Sangam who had entered into sale agreement with the Petitioner was removed from the Presidentship of the Sangam. The successor Office-bearers directed the Petitioner to vacate and hand over the possession since there was a dispute between the Office-bearers. The Petitioner had filed a civil suit in C.S.No.23 of 2012 before the Original Side of this Court for specific performance of contract for sale. As per Clause 3 of the sale agreement, full sale consideration had been paid. The successor Office-bearers had instituted R.C.O.P.No.1322 of 2012 as though the Petitioner as tenant had committed willful default. Since he had entered into sale agreement with the landlord and had paid the substantial amount towards sale consideration, the successor Office-bearers had arrived at a conclusion that the Petitioner had not paid rent. They could have adjusted from the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) lying in the bank account of the said Sangam. Instead, they had instituted R.C.O.P.No.1322 of 2022. The Petitioner sought permission of this Court to deposit the rent into the credit of C.S.No.23 of 2012. As per Clause 3 of the sale agreement, the total consideration was deposited on the Original Side of this Court by the Petitioner. Therefore, he need not pay rent to the landlord. Due to the misunderstanding between the President of the Sangam, who had entered into sale agreement with the Petitioner and other Office-bearers the Petitioner insisted for execu