C.R.P(MD)No.2569 of 2018

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 14.12.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

C.R.P(MD)No.2569 of 2018

and

C.M.P(MD) No.11291 of 2018

M.Arunachalam

... Petitioner/Appellant/Respondent

Vs.

Mubarak (died)

...1^st Respondent/1^st Petitioner

1.Syed Nisha

...1^st Respondent/2^nd Respondent/

2^nd Petitioner

2.Hasanathul Shalika

3.M.Ithris

4.Ahamed Pathumal

5.Ahamed Akila

6.Asanthul Sulaika

...Respondents 2 to 6/Respondents 3 to 6/

3^rd Parties

PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil

Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to set aside the

fair and decretal order dated 26.09.2018 passed in R.C.A.No.25 of

2012 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal

Sub Court), Tirunelveli, confirming the fair and decreetal order

dated 23.02.2012 passed in R.C.O.P.No.86 of 2006 on the file of the

1^st Additional Rent Controller (1^st Additional District Munsif

Court), Tirunelveli, by allowing this revision petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.H.Arumugam

For R1 & R4

: Mr.M.P.Senthil

ORDER

This civil revision petition is filed challenging the

concurrent orders of eviction passed against the revision

petitioner herein.

2.The facts in brief which are essential for disposing of the

above civil revision are as follows:-

(i) One Mubarak, the deceased respondent and the first

respondent herein had filed RCOP No.86 of 2006 on the file of the

1^st Additional Rent Controller (1^st Additional District Munsif

Court), Tirunelveli, for evicting the revision petitioner herein on

the ground of wilful default and ceasing to occupy the building for

over six months. It is their case that the petitioner had been

1/7

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.R.P(MD)No.2569 of 2018

inducted as a tenant on a monthly rental of Rs.675/-. The rents had

been paid by him upto February 2004 and thereafter, he has failed to

pay the rents. On the date of the filing of the rent control

proceedings, the petitioner was in arrears of rent from March 2004

to August 2006 for a period of 30 months to the tune of

Rs.20,250/-. That apart, the revision petitioner had closed his

business and had ceased to occupy the buildings for over six months.

(ii) The revision petitioner herein had filed a counter

contending that he had been inducted as a tenant by Ali Fathimal and

Hasanathul Shalika and the petition is totally bereft of details as

to how the first respondent and Mubarak claim a right to the suit

property.

(iii) The defence was that the revision petitioner was in the

habit of paying the rents in a lumpsum. That apart, the revision

petitioner had not been served with any notice prior to the

institution to the proceedings. The summon issued to him has been

received by him on 14.07.2006 stating that the case would be listed

on 27.10.2006. The petitioner had paid the entire arrears of rent

to the counsel appearing for the said Mubarak and the first

respondent herein on 26.10.2006 itself. Therefore, he would contend

that there is no wilful default. That apart, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

has been paid as advance which remains with the earlier landlord.

He would also state that after September 2006, he has been paying

rents without any default. He would deny the contention that he

has ceased to occupy the property.

(iv) The Rent Controller by his order dated 23.02.2012 was

pleased to allow the rent control petition only on the ground of

wilful default and not on the ground of ceasing to occupy. The Rent

Controller had observed that the revision petitioner as R.W.1 had

admitted that the monthly rent had to be paid before expiry of the

following months and that he had not paid the rent, because the

landlord had not come to collect the same. He had however not taken

any steps to deposit the rent, though the landlord had not turned up

to coll