This revision has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed in R.C.A.No.17 of 2008 dated 25.08.2008 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller in M.P.No.24 of 2008 in R.C.O.P.No.17 of dated 26.06.2008 a petition filed under Section 11(4) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
2. Heard Mr.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.B.Poonkhulali, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant would submit in his argument that both the Courts below have committed errors in allowing the application under Section 11(4) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, since the alleged quantum of arrears are yet to be ascertained and it could be made only in the main O.P. He would further submit that the contention of the petitioner before Rent Controller was that he was a lessee for the ground floor alone and he was not having any dual relationship as tenant in respect of the 1st floor. He would further submit that the lessee of the 1st floor was one Mr.P.S.Mohamed Ibrahim, who was introduced by the petitioner to the respondent. He would further submit that the petitioner would be liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- (Rupees Five Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards monthly rent and he has paid the said rent promptly and he has not committed any default in payment of rent. He would also submit that the respondent/landlord has put forth a false plea that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of both the ground and 1st floor and was liable to pay Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Only) per month towards monthly rent and therefore, the claim of the respondent should not have been ordered by the Courts below. He would also submit that the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner was not considered by the lower Court. He would further submit in his arguments that when there is a 'bona fide' dispute in respect of landlord and tenant relationship, regarding the property, the Courts below committed error and decided the admitted arrears as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. He would draw the attention of the Court to a judgment of Bench of this Court reported in 2002 (1) L.W. 133 in between M/s. A.Rafeeq Ahmed & Co. represented by its Partner K.Muktar Ahmed v. M/s. Montari Leather Ltd., represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, in support of his arguments. He would further submit that the impugned order which was passed with conjunctions and surmises should have been set aside and therefore, this revision be allowed.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit in her argument that the Courts below have correctly come to a conclusion as the tenancy of both the premises were with the parties and the petitioner was liable to pay the sum of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Only) per month towards rent for the entire building. She would further submit in her arguments that there is no question of any separate tenancy after the petitioner had occupied 1st floor along with ground floor portion and was paying a sum of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Only) towards rent. She would further submit that it is not her case that she had paid a sum of Rs.5,500/- (Rupees Five Thousand Five Hundred Only) for the 1st floor on behalf of Mr.P.S.Mohamed Ibrahim. She would further submit in her argument that the Court below have correctly come to a conclusion that the tenancy was in respect of the entire building as described in the R.C.O.P. and the rent was at Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Only) per month, after the said Mr.P.S.Mohamed Ibrahim did not take possession of the said property and the petitioner herself had clubbed the 1st floor along with the ground floor and had became tenant for both premises. It would also be evident from the fact that the previous 11 months period of tenancy was not subsequently extended in between parties. She would also submit that the conduct of parties would also go to show that the entire building was leased out to the petitioner and the said Mr.P.S.Mohamed Ibrahim did not come to the picture at all. She would further insist in her argument that the petitioner/tenant had admittedly not elected to reply through notice issued by the respondent/landlord on 06.06.2007, but paid a sum of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand Only) through a Demand Draft dated 25.06.2007, which would show that the petitioner has accepted the relationship of landlord and tenant in between parties in respect of entire building. She would further submit in her argument that the admitted arrears as claimed by the respondent was correctly found by the lower Court and was ordered to deposit the said sum of Rs.99,000/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Thousand Only) within a period of 1 month and the petitioner did not deposit the said sum towards compliance of the said order and therefore, the Courts below have correctly come to a conclusion of stopping the proceedings in the R.C.O.P. and ordered eviction, which are perfectly in order and therefore, they are not liable to be varied or set aside and therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent would request the Court to dismiss the revision petition.
5. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. The present revision has been filed by the petitioner/tenant against the concurrent findings reached by the learned Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority in affirming the conclusion that the petitioner was the tenant of the entire building consisting of ground floor and first floor for a monthly rent of Rs.11,000/- and the petitioner was in arrears of eleven months' rent to the tune of Rs.99,000/- and the petitioner did not avail the time limit granted by the Rent Controller, in paying the said admitted arrears and therefore, the Rent Control proceedings were stopped under Section 11 (4) of the Act., and an eviction order was passed against the petitioner.
6. The question posed before this Court is whether the concurrent findings reached by both the Courts below on the question of facts has to be interfered or not. On a careful consideration of submissions and the perusal of pleadings of both parties, we could see that the building in Door No.9, Brammaputra Street, Palani Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai-87, consisting of a ground floor and the first floor is admittedly belonged to the respondent. The respondent has put forth a case that the ground floor was originally leased out to the petitioner for a monthly rent of Rs.5,500/- and thereafter, the first floor was let out to one Mr.P.S.Mohamed Ibrahim, for a monthly rent of Rs.5,500/- as introduced by the petitioner and the said Mohamed Ibrahim did not occupy the premises and therefore, the petitioner herself took the lease of first floor also and became the tenant for both the floors for a sum of Rs.11,000/- per month and continued her tenancy by enjoying both the floors. However, the said theory of occupation of first floor by the petitioner on the non-occupation of the said P.S.Mohamed Ibrahim was denied by the petitioner. The petitioner would put forth that she is the tenant, in respect of the ground floor, only, for a sum of Rs.5,500/-. In such circumstances, both the Courts below had come to a conclusion that the entire building consisting of ground floor and first floor was under the occupation of the petitioner and the monthly rent for the said lease was at Rs.11,000/- per month. It is also an admitted case that the petitioner used to pay Rs.11,000/- in the form of a Demand Draft or two Demand Drafts for Rs.5,500/- each, to the respondent/landlord, on several occasions towards payment of rent. It has not been explained by the petitioner that those payments made at Rs.11,000/- with two demand drafts of Rs.5,500/- each were towards the rent for the ground floor alone and why should two months rents have been paid periodically for each month. Apart from that the respondent/landlord had issued a notice to the respondent seeking for the payment of arrears of rent on 06.06.2007 and the said notice was received by the petitioner. The said copy of notice is produced as Ex.P2 and acknowledgment is produced as Ex.P1. Admittedly, the said notice was not replied by the petitioner. Nor the petitioner elected to file any application for deposit of rent claiming that the ground floor alone was leased out to the petitioner and she is in possession of the ground floor alone and was liable to pay only a sum of Rs.5,500/- per month towards rent. When the notice issued by the respondent/landlord was not replied, it can be presumed that the contents of the notice produced as Ex.P2 are deemed to have been admitted by the petitioner. The said presumption can further be strengthened by various payments made by the petitioner through demand drafts taken for the value of Rs.11,000/- or Rs.5,500/- each in two demand drafts and were paid to the respondent/landlord, month after month. Therefore, the findings of both the Courts below that the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent, in respect of both the ground and first floor for the monthly rent of Rs.11,000/- cannot be interfered. Therefore, there can be no dispute regarding the tenancy in between the petitioner and the respondent.
7. The judgment of this Court reported in 2002 (1) L.W. 133 in between M/s. A.Rafeeq Ahmed & Co. represented by its Partner K.Muktar Ahmed v. M/s.Montari Leather Ltd., represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, as cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the Courts below have categorically come to a conclusion that there is no bonafide dispute of the landlord and tenant relationship in between parties as the petitioner herself occupied the tenanted portion in first floor which was not refused by the petitioner by sending any reply notice. On the other hand, it was ratified by making payments of monthly rent for both the floors. The reasons adduced by both the Courts below are based upon the documentary evidence and there is no perverse or fault on the part of the lower Courts in arriving to such concurrent findings.
8. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has thus confirmed the order of the leaned Rent Controller directing the petitioner/tenant to pay a sum of Rs.99,000/- towards admitted arrears was not complied with and therefore, stopping of proceedings was ordered and it was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority by dismissing the appeal. Therefore, there is no irregularity in the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. Therefore, the revision preferred by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
9. For the foregoing discussion, this revision petition is dismissed and the concurrent findings of both the Courts below are confirmed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
ssn To The District Munsif Court (Rent Controller), Poonamallee