C.R.P.Nos. 3662 & 3663 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.02.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

C.R.P.Nos. 3662 & 3663 of 2018

and

C.M.P. Nos. 20383 & 20387 of 2018

A.Ranganathan

...

Petitioner in both CRPs

Vs

T.D.Sarasabooshani Ammal

W/o.T.R.Govindarajan

....

Respondent in CRP No.3662/2018

1. T.D.Sarasabooshani Ammal

W/o.T.R.Govindarajan

2. T.G.Chandrasekar

S/o.T.R.Govindarajan

....

Respondents in CRP No.3663/2018

Common Prayer : Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 25(1) of the

Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease & Rent Control Act, 1960, to set aside the fair

and decreetal order dated 05.09.2018 in R.C.A.Nos.4 & 5 of 2015 on the file

of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / Sub Court, Tirupattur reversing the

fair and decreetal order, dated 29.04.2015 in R.C.O.P.Nos.18 & 17 of 2014

on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District.

In both C.R.Ps

For Petitioner

: Mr.PA.Sudesh Kumar

For Respondents

: Mr.N.E.A.Dinesh Kumar

1/12

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

C.R.P.Nos. 3662 & 3663 of 2018

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the fair

and decreetal order dated 05.09.2018 in R.C.A.Nos.4 & 5 of 2015 on the file

of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / Sub Court, Tirupattur reversing the

fair and decreetal order, dated 29.04.2015 in R.C.O.P.Nos.18 & 17 of 2014

on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District.

2. In both Civil Revision Petitions, the petitioner is the tenant and

the respondents are the landlords. The petitioner filed a petition seeking

permission to deposit the monthly rent in respect of the petition premises.

Pending the said petition, the respondents (herein after called as “landlord”)

filed a petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default. The learned Rent

Controller allowed the petition seeking permission to deposit the monthly

rent filed by the tenant and dismissed the petition seeking for eviction on the

ground of wilful default filed by the landlord. Aggrieved by the same, the

landlord preferred an appeal before the learned Rent Control Appellate

Authority and both the appeals were allowed, thereby dismissing the petition

seeking permission to deposit the rent and allowed the petition seeking for

eviction on the ground of wilful default. Aggrieved by the same, the present

Civil Revision Petitions.

2/12

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

C.R.P.Nos. 3662 & 3663 of 2018

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the Appellate Authority assuming that loss of 10% increase of rent found

that the tenant committed wilful default and ordered for eviction. The

deposit of rent for the period of genuineness would amount to wilful default.

As directed by the Court below, the petitioner deposited the rent for 11

months on 30.04.2015, after the order was passed by the learned Rent

Controller dated 29.04.2015. Therefore, it would not amount to wilful

default. Even today, the petitioner is depositing the rent amount to the credit

of RCOP. The landlord did not even state in the petition what is the monthly

rent and on what period the tenant committed default. In the petition, the

tenant stated that there was a recital in the agreement entered between the

tenant and the original landlord, viz., the father of the respondents herein and

agreed to enhance the rent at 20% per annum. However, subsequently, it

was reduced to 10% by oral agreement between them. Therefore, the said

agreement cannot be taken into account in order to decide the issue of wilful

default. In fact, in the year 2019, the landlord filed a petition for fixing of

fair rent of Rs.5,000/- as monthly rent. Therefore, the tenant cannot commit

any wilful default at any point of time. After the demise of the original

landlord, his wife/landlady refused to receive the fair rent amount as

contempla