This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 12.01.2017 passed in R.C.A. No. 2 of 2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tambaram confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2013 in R.C.O.P.No.63 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District http://www.judis.nic.in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 1/10 CRP NPD No.1587 of 2017 Munsif Court, Alandur.
2. The respondents herein are the landlords and petitioner is the tenant. The respondents herein have filed R.C.O.P. No. 63 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur, against the petitioner for eviction on the ground of wilful default and owners' occupation.
3. According to the respondents/landlord, the petitioner was inducted in the premises in question measuring an extent of 1000 square feet. There was a rental agreement dated 14.03.2005 between the landlords and tenant whereby the petitioner/tenant agreed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as rent excluding electricity charges. The petitioner/tenant paid Rs.25,000/- towards security deposit which the respondents have to refund it at the time of termination of the tenancy. Subsequently, by a rental agreement dated 14.03.2007, the monthly rent was revised from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.4,500/-. While so, the respondents, who were in Muscat, have expressed their intention to come down to India and settle in the premises which is under the occupation of the petitioner/tenant. Therefore, they demanded the petitioner/tenant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the property. As the petitioner/tenant refused to budge, a notice dated 10.09.2008 and 12.05.2009 http://www.judis.nic.in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/10 CRP NPD No.1587 of 2017 were issued calling upon him to quit and deliver vacant possession. On such notice, the petitioner/tenant has filed a suit in O.S.No. 159 of 2009 against the respondents/landlords and obtained an order of interim injunction. It is stated that the petitioner/tenant has not paid the maintenance charges to the flat owners amounting to Rs.36,100/- as on June 2009. The respondents/landlords have also filed RCOP No. 54 of 2009 against the petitioner/tenant and it is pending. While so, since the petitioner/tenant committed default in payment of rent from June 2009 till March 2010, the present petition under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was filed to direct the petitioner/tenant to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises in question.
4. The revision petitioner/tenant filed a counter contending that there was no default in payment of rent since June 2009, as alleged. The petitioner have no inclination to come down to Chennai from Muscat and therefore, they do not require the premises in question for their own occupation. Therefore, for the notices sent by the respondents/landlord, the petitioner/tenant did not issue any reply notice. The respondents/landlords have harassed the petitioner/ tenant with threat to vacate the premises and therefore, he filed O.S. No. 159 of 2009 and obtained an order of injunction. http://www.judis.nic.in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/10 CRP NPD No.1587 of 2017 The respondents/landlords have already filed RCOP No. 54 of 2009 for evicting the petitioner/tenant on the ground of owners own use and occupation, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. According to the petitioner, since March 2009, there was a huge scarcity of water in the area and therefore petitioner/tenant installed a Syntex water tank and the cost incurred thereof was adjusted towards payment of rent. Further, white washing work was undertaken and the expenses thereof was adjusted towards maintenance cost. Therefore he prayed for dismissal of the Rent Control Original Petition.
5. Before the learned Rent Controller, PW1, power agent of the respondents/landlords was examined and Exs. P1 to P9 were marked. The petitioner/tenant has neither examined any witness nor marked any document. The learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the petitioner/tenant is in arrears of rent from June 2009 till March 2010 and the arrears thereof was paid only after an order passed under Section 11 (4) of the Act and it stands testimony to the fact that there was arrears payable by the petitioner/tenant. Further, there is no evidence to show that installation of syntex water tank and painting works were undertaken by the petitioner/tenant with the permission of the http://www.judis.nic.in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/10 CRP NPD No.1587 of 2017 respondents/landlord. Accordingly, the learned Rent Controller dismissed RCOP No. 63 of 2010.
6. Before the Appellate authority, the petitioner/tenant filed an application to produce documents such as payment of rent and water tax for the years 2012, 2013 and 2016. The Appellate Authority refused to accept those documents on the ground that they were receipts after filing of the Original Petition in the year 2010. The appellate authority agreed with the conclusion reached by the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner/tenant was in arrears of rent and the explanation offered by him that the rental amount was adjusted towards installation of Syntex water tank and expenses incurred towards white washing lacks merits.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/tenant has not committed any wilful default in payment of rent and the findings rendered thereof are not sustainable. The Courts below did not consider that the respondents/landlord did not establish the ingredients of Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act and consequently, they are not entitled to the relief sought for. The Courts below did not consider that the petitioner incurred expenses for installation of water tank due to scarcity of water in the locality. http://www.judis.nic.in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/10 CRP NPD No.1587 of 2017 He also resorted to white wash the building and incurred expenses. These expenses are required to be deducted in the payment of rent and if it is accounted for, there may not be any arrears of rent. The reasoning assigned by the courts below that the petitioner is in arrears of payment of rent from January 2009 to March 2010 is without any legally acceptable evidence. Both the courts below erred in granting the relief sought for in the Original Petition filed by the respondents/landlord. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed for allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
8. On the above contention, this Court heard the learned counsel for the respondents/landlords and perused the materials placed.
9. It is the claim of the respondents/landlords that the petitioner did not pay rent and he is in default of rental arrears. On the other hand, the petitioner/tenant contends that he incurred expenses for installation of water tank due to water scarcity as well as indulged in white washing the building. It is his contention that the amount incurred thereof has to be adjusted towards rent. If it is so, it is for the petitioner/tenant to file documentary evidence to show what was the cost of the water tank, what was the expenses incurred for white washing the building etc., But it is merely asserted that amount was incurred and it has to be adjusted. This was disputed by the respondents/ http://www.judis.nic.in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6/10 CRP NPD No.1587 of 2017 landlords stating that they have not permitted the petitioner/tenant to install a water tank or to adjust the amount thereof towards payment of rent. But the petitioner/tenant has stated that orally the respondents/landlords permitted him to do so. What was the expenses incurred by the petitioner/tenant for installation of water tank and white washing, for how many months the rent has to be adjusted proportionate to the expenses incurred by the petitioner/ tenant is not known. The petitioner/tenant also did not enter the witness box before the learned Rent Controller to disprove the averments made in the Original Petition with respect to arrears of rent. A bald allegation has been raised by the petitioner/tenant in this Civil Revision Petition to cover up the default in payment. In fact, on 10.09.2008 and 12.05.2009 notices were issued calling upon the petitioner/tenant to quit and deliver vacant possession. The petitioner/tenant conveniently did not sent any reply notice. If really the petitioner/tenant incurred expenses for installation of water tank and white washing, he could have stated so by way of a reply notice. Even that is not forthcoming from the petitioner/tenant and therefore, the contentions of the petitioner/tenant cannot be believed.
10. A tenant is bound to pay the landlord the rent month after month and default in payment of rent would only entail the eviction of the tenant. The payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord is not a bounty or charity and http://www.judis.nic.in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7/10 CRP NPD No.1587 of 2017 it is his statutory duty to pay rent for occupation of the premises of the landlord. In this case, the RCOP No. 63 of 2010 was filed complaining that the petitioner/tenant has committed default in payment of rent. Now, we are in the year 2021. It appears that the petitioner/tenant is squatting in the premises in question without paying the rent much to the chagrin of the respondents/ landlords. Even in this Civil Revision Petition, there is no document produced to show that during the pendency of these proceedings such as Rent Control Original Petition, Rent Control Appeal and Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner/tenant has paid the arrears of rent or paying the statutory rent month after month. A bald and vague averments have been made purportedly to squat over the premises without even paying the rent. Such an attitude on the part of the petitioner/tenant is to be deprecated.
11. The learned District Munsif/Rent Controller has come to the conclusion that petitioner/tenant, to show his bonafide, ought to have filed a petition under Section 8 (5) of the Rent Control Act seeking permission to deposit the rent but no such application was filed.. Further, the respondent was duly served with the termination of lease agreement dated 10.08.2008 and the same was not replied by the respondent. The learned District Munsif also took note of the fact that the respondent has not proved that he has paid the arrears of rent from January 2009 to March 2010, which finds confirmation by the http://www.judis.nic.in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8/10 CRP NPD No.1587 of 2017 Appellate Authority in the appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant. This Court is also in agreement with the findings rendered by the courts below and there is no perversity or illegality warranting interference.
12. On consideration of the entire materials on record, this Court finds that the petitioner/tenant is guilty of non-payment of rent for several years and he is not entitled to remain in possession of the premises in question any longer.
13. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order dated 12.01.2017 passed in R.C.A.No.2 of 2013 as well as the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2013 in R.C.O.P.No.63 of 2010. No costs. The petitioner is directed to handover the vacant possession within period of five months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.09.2021 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No rm http://www.judis.nic.in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 9/10 CRP NPD No.1587 of 2017 S. KANNAMMAL, J rm To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Tambaram.
2.The Principal District Munsif, Tambaram.
Pre-delivery order in CRP (NPD) No. 1587/2017 30.09.2021 http://www.judis.nic.in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 10/10