The court upheld the concurrent findings regarding wilful default and fixation of fair rent as per legislative provisions, necessitating tenant compliance with payment obligations after notification of property sale.

COMMON ORDER

The tenant is the revision petitioner in these revision petitions.

2. I have heard Mr.P.M.Duraiswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the revisions and Mr.J.Antony Jesus, learned counsel for the sole respondent/ landlord in both these revision petitions.

3. CRP.No.3263 of 2024 has been filed challenging the judgment in RCA.No. 2 of 2019 confirming the order in RCOP.No. 29 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif Court) Coimbatore. RCOP.No. 29 of 2010 was filed for eviction of the petitioner on the grounds of willful default and different user.

4. CRP.No. 3264 of 2024 arises out of rent control proceedings in RCOP.

No. 5 of 2019 challenging the judgment in RCA.No.5 of 2019, confirming the order in RCOP.No.311 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif Court) Coimbatore, RCOP having been filed for fixation of fair rent.

5. Mr.P.M.Duraiswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner would state that as against contractual rent of Rs.3000/-, the Courts have fixed the rent at Rs.25,000/- per month without following the mandate of Section 4 of Act 18 of 1960. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has also taken me through the respective findings rendered by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority with regard to crucial factors viz., age of the building and the market value of the land in question.

6. Per contra, Mr.Antony Jesus, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would state that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have concurrently come to the conclusion that the fair rent to be fixed for the tenanted premises is Rs.25,000/- and they have followed the various principles laid down by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in matters pertaining to Section 4 of the Act and therefore, no interference is warranted under Section 25 of the Act.

7. Insofar as wilful default, Mr. P.M. Duraiswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner would state that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant even under the erstwhile owner by name C.G.Armugam and the said C.G.Armugam had even filed an eviction petition on the ground of willful default. However, the petitioner had filed RCOP.No.105 of 2004 seeking to deposit rents into Court, invoking Section 8(5) of the Act. Pending the eviction petition, the said C.G.Armugam had sold the property to the present respondent vide sale deed dated 23.11.2006 and in view of the same, the Rent Control Petitions filed by the erstwhile landlord were dismissed.

8. It is the submission of learned counsel Mr.P.M.Duraiswamy, that the petitioner continued to deposit rents in RCOP.105 of 2004 meticulously and without any default. Though the landlord/respondent herein issued a notice informing the tenant about his purchase, the tenant had sent a reply on 20.03.2008 wherein he has clearly informed the landlord that the tenant is depositing the rents pursuant to an order in RCOP.No.105 of 2004. It is therefore the submission of Mr.P.M.Duraiswamy that the default cannot be termed as wilful as the petitioner has been obeying the orders of the Court in a Section 8(5) application, by depositing monthly rents without any default or delay. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed.

9. Meeting the arguments of Mr.P.M.Duraiswamy, the learned counsel for the respondent/ landlord, Mr. Antony Jesus would state that the order of deposit of rents was only in pursuance of an alleged refusal to receive rents by the erstwhile landlord and at least after the petitioner was put on notice about the purchase by the respondent, the petitioner should have been diligent and bona fide in tendering re