Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

P.K.S.Kutty vs M.Natarajan

Madras High Court|23 March, 2017

JUDGMENT / ORDER

in both PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions are filed Under Section in both 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to call for the records relating to the common order dated 29.07.2008, passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai in R.C.A.Nos.78 and 79 of 2005 confirming the order dated 07.06.2005 passed in I.A.No.135 of 2003 in R.C.O.P.Nos.164 of 2002 and R.C.O.P.No.164 of 2002 respectively on the file of the Principal District Munsif Cum Rent Controller, Madurai town, and to set aside the same.
These revision petitions have been filed by the tenant against the common order of the Rent Control Act authority directing the petitioner / tenant to deposit the arrears of rent which, according to the landlord comes around to Rs.18,000/- as on 02.05.2002, when the R.C.O.P.Nos.164 of 2002 filed along with the Section 11(4) applications.
2.The revision petitioner has contested the petitions claiming that he has paid the rent at the rate of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred Only) per monthly and continued to pay till the date of filing the petition and the amount towards the property tax and maintenance tax has been deducted. However, Both Courts below have not believed the contention of the tenant and ultimately held that the tenant has not deposited arrears of rent. Therefore, directed the tenant to vacate the petition mentioned premises. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant has preferred revision petitions on the ground that both the Rent Controller as well as the Lower Appellate Court has not properly appreciated the facts and the payment of Rs.29,945 (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Five Only) on 04.06.2005 and the payment of Rs.10,052/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Fifty Two Only) towards property tax which has been deducted from the alleged arrears of rent were not taken note of by the Court below.
3.Be that as it may be. Pending revision petitions the landlord has taken out another petition in M.P.No. 1 of 2014 alleging that after preferring revision the tenant has not paid the agreed monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred Only) till the date including the arrears of rent as directed by the Lower Appellate authority and therefore sought for an order, directing the tenant to pay the rent to him or to deposit the entire arrears of Rs.86,000/-(Rupees Eighty Six Thousand Only) till January 2014, within a time frame.
4.A copy of this affidavit and petition were served to the revision petitioner's counsel on 20.02.2014, but till date no counter was filed. When the matter was taken up for final hearing on 16.03.2017, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought time to produce the rental receipts to show that the revision petitioner is not at all default in paying the rent and he has been paying the rent till date. When the matter is taken up today the learned counsel for the petitioner would have not produced any rental receipts as promised by him earlier but, he only sought some more time to produce the rental receipts.
5.This Court is not inclined to show anymore indulgence to the revision petitioner who evidently failed to pay the arrears of rent even at the time of filing the R.C.O.Ps. in the year 2002 and the same has been confirmed both by the Rent Controller as well as Lower Appellate Authority. Further, it is seen that by filing revision petition the tenant is enjoying the premises without paying any rent to the landlord and inspite of petition taken out as early as on 31.01.2014 to pay the arrears of rent, revision petitioner has taken advantage of the pendency of the revisions and not responded to the said M.P. The conduct of the tenant shows that he has been willful default in payment of the rent, despite the Court's intervention.
6.Therefore, these revision petitions are dismissed. The common orders passed by the Lower Appellate Court on 29.07.2008 stand confirmed. The tenant shall vacate the premises and hand over the premises to the landlord forthwith. These revision petitions are dismissed. No costs.
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai.
2.Rent Colntroller Cum Principal, District Munsif Madurai Town, Madurai..
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

P.K.S.Kutty vs M.Natarajan

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
23 March, 2017