CRP (NPD) No.2377 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.04.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

CRP (NPD) No.2377 of 2018

and CMP.No.14704 of 2018

V.Srinivasan

..Petitioner

Vs.

1.V.Sampoornammal

2.V.Ramamurthy

3.Executive Trustee/Assistant Commissioner,

Sri Devarajasamy Devasthanam,

having office at

Sri Devarajaswamy Temple Sannadhi Street,

Little Kanchipuram.

..Respondents

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, to set aside the order dated 11.04.2018 made in RCA No.7 of 2012 by the

Rent Control Appellate Authority/Subordinate Judge at Kanchipuram

confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 31.01.2012 made in RCOP No.9

of 2006 by the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Kanchipuram.

For Petitioner

: Mr.S.Jayakumar

For R1 & R2

: Mr. Kanchi G.V.Mathiazhagan

For R3

: Mr.K.Hari Haran

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRP (NPD) No.2377 of 2018

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated

11.04.2018 passed in RCA No.7 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control

Appellate Authority/Subordinate Judge, Kanchipuram, thereby confirming the

fair and decreetal order dated 31.01.2012 passed in RCOP No.9 of 2006 on the

file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif, Kanchipuram, thereby ordering

eviction.

2. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondents are the landlord in

respect of the superstructure of the suit property. The respondents 1 and 2 filed

a petition for eviction on the ground of owners occupation, wilful default, acts

of waste and the nuisance to occupy the 1^st floor.

3. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on the ground of

own use and occupation and also acts of waste. Insofar as the other prayers the

Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition and thereby directed the tenant

to vacate and handover the possession of the petition premises to the landlord

within the period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed an

appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Appellate

Authority modified the order of eviction on the ground of wilful default in

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRP (NPD) No.2377 of 2018

payment of rent, own use and occupation. Insofar as the ground of causing

nuisance to the landlord is concerned, it was dismissed. Aggrieved by the

same, the tenant preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. While pending the appeal before the Rent Control Appellate

Authority, the third respondent preferred an appeal to implead the Temple as a

party for the reason that the land belongs to the Temple and superstructure was

only put up by the present landlord. They filed a suit in O.S.No.23 of 2016 for

declaration and mandatory injunction and the suit was decreed in respect of the

prayer for declaration and dismissed insofar as the prayer for mandatory

injunction is concerned. Therefore, admittedly, when the superstructure was

put up by the landlord herein, the tenant ought to have pay the rent to the

petition premises. The tenant failed to pay the rent from October 2000 and has

chosen to file the petition, to deposit the rent for the months of January 2001 to

July 2001 in RCOP No.32 of 2001. Therefore, the petitioner committed wilful

default in payment of rent and he is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful

default. In respect of the another ground raised by the landlord, the first floor

of the petition premises was used by the landlord from the month of July 2001,

and the tenant has disconnected the electricity line and created nuisance.

Therefore, the first floor became vacant and the landlord residing in rental

premises.

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

CRP (NPD) No.2377 of 2018

5. Whereas, the contention of the tenant is that the landlord has

constructed a new house, the first and second floor were let out to another

tenan