Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 27146
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
,
Revision Petitioner (Tenant) – Appellant
Versus
Respondent (Landlord) – Respondent
RCOP.No.8 of 1997|RCOP.No.21 of 1997|RCOP.No.9 of 1997|O.S.No.229 of 2000|RCA.Nos.9 to 11 of 2001|CRP.Nos.754 to 757 of 2006
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [Not Specified]
For the Respondents: [Not Specified]
An ex parte decree lacking reasons is invalid and can be set aside in collateral proceedings; tenants admitting tenancy cannot deny landlord’s title to avoid eviction based on wilful default and bona fide requirement.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Order XX Rule 4 and 5 - Ex parte decree - Necessity of reasons in judgment - An ex parte decree without reasons or analysis of pleadings and evidence is not a valid judgment in law and can be set aside in collateral proceedings (paras 12-14, 46-47).
(B) Rent Control Proceedings - Wilful default - Non-payment of rent - Tenant’s obligation to pay rent to rightful landlord - Courts held tenant liable for non-payment despite tenant's claim of ownership and payment of advance - Court finding no bona fide dispute regarding rent receiver (para 16-17, 19).
(C) Doctrine of election and estoppel - Tenant cannot deny landlord’s title after admission of tenancy relationship and failure to disclose subsequent agreements or decrees for years, indicating attempts to protract proceedings (paras 10-11, 15, 18-19).
Facts of the case:
The tenant was in possession of premises on oral tenancy with monthly rent increased from Rs.1000 to Rs.4500. Rent was paid irregularly, cheques were returned, and tenant failed to pay rent subsequently. Landlord filed eviction petitions on grounds of wilful default and demolition for reconstruction. Tenant claimed ownership through sale agreement and ex parte decree obtained subsequently but failed to disclose these documents timely. The courts below found in favor of landlord.
Findings of Court:
The ex parte decree was unreasoned and non-compliant with CPC requirements, rendering it non est. Tenant’s conduct evidenced intent to stall eviction proceedings. Tenant had admitted tenancy and consistent rent payment to landlord until default. Demolition was bona fide. Tenant’s application to deposit rent in court was dismissed as a dilatory tactic. Court upheld eviction orders.
Issues: (i) Can tenant deny landlord’s title after admitting tenancy? (ii) Validity of ex parte decree without reasons in collateral proceedings? (iii) Whether eviction orders are justified on merits?
Ratio Decidendi: A judgment must contain reasons to be valid; failure to do so invalidates ex parte decrees which can be set aside in collateral proceedings. Admitting tenancy and delaying disclosure of alleged ownership denies tenant the right to resist eviction. Courts are justified in evicting tenants on grounds of wilful default and necessity of premises for reconstruction.
Result: Revisions dismissed and eviction orders upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts of tenancy, rent defaults, and eviction petitions (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments of tenant claiming ownership and landlord opposing (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court framing key issues to be determined (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. validity and legal requirements of ex parte decree in collateral proceedings (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. findings on rent payment, tenancy relation, demolition, and fraudulent delay tactics (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
ORDER
These revisions have been filed challenging the orders of eviction passed by the Courts below as against the revision petitioner.
2. RCOP.No.8 of 1997 has been filed by the respondent/landlord against the revision petitioner for eviction on the ground of wilful default, RCOP.No.21 of 1997 has been filed by the respondent/landlord for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction and RCOP.No.9 of 1997 has been filed by the revision petitioner/tenant to deposit the rent into the Court.
3. Since the issue relates to the very same premises in the RCOPs, these revisions are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order. The petitioner and the respondent are common in all the revisions. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as tenant and the landlord.
4. Brief background of the cases are as follows:
4.a.The case of landlord is that the shop bearing Nos.B11 to B13 in Thailamai Theatre Complex was let out to the tenant on a oral tenancy on a monthly rent of Rs.1000/-. During the year 1995, the rent was enhanced to Rs.4500/-. The respondent paid a sum of Rs.13,5000/- through his employee Balasubramaniam towards monthly rent for the months of April, May and June and receipt was also issued by the landlord. However, from the month of July, the respondent sent only a sum of Rs.2000/- through cheque, the landlord returned the cheque with a letter. Thereafter, from July 1995 till March 1997, the tenant has not paid the rent and the tenant was due for Rs.94500/-. Therefore, RCOP.No.8 of 1997 was filed on the ground of wilful default.
4.b.RCOP.No.21 of 1997 was filed by the landlord for demolition and reconstruction on the ground that while extending the road by the Municipality major portion occupied by the tenant is also demolished by the Municipality. Therefore, the petitioner intends to demolish the shop. The tenant took a stand that the property originally belonged to the landlord, his father Natesan Chettiar and his brother Gnanasekaran, he came as a tenant in the year 1981, at that time, Rs.350/- per month was the rent and he had paid an advance of Rs.20,000/- as advance. Later, the rent was periodically increased and in the year 1997, the rent collected was Rs.1000/-, receipts were issued in the name of Natesan Chettiar and Sons. Further, advance of Rs.1 lakh is also paid by the tenant in the year 1990. Till August 1995, the tenant has paid through cheque, as the rent have been refused by the landlord, the respondent has deposited the same in a separate account, besides, he also filed an application in RCOP.No.9 of 1997. According to the tenant, he has not committed any wilful default. It is further contention that during the encroachment drive by the Municipality, small portion of the property was damaged, the same has been set right and the building is in good condition.
4.c. RCOP.No.9 of 1997 was filed by the tenant to deposit the rent in the Court. According to the tenant, originally building is let out by the respondent's landlord, respondent and his brother. After the death of the respondent's father, the tenant is not aware of the partition effected in their family and he is also not aware of the fact that the petitioner is entitled to receive the rent. The petitioner's brother is also died and his legal heirs are also entitled to receive the rent. Therefore, since, there was a doubt as to who is entitled to receive the rent, he has deposited the rent in a separa
