Madras High Court
Mettupalayam Municipality ... vs R.M. Shanmugam on 16 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)3MLJ691
ORDER S.S. Subramani, J.
1. Both these revision petitions are filed by tenant against whom an order of eviction was passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the appellate authority on the ground that it has committed wilful default in paying rent.
2. In R.C.O.P. No. 256 of 1989, against which revision C.R.P. No. 2319 of 1999 arises, landlord contended that the rent at the rate of Rs. 300 per month was not paid from 1.2.1985 and a notice was issued on 17.6.1989 demanding rent arrears for 52 months. Even after receipt of notice, they did not pay the rent and no reply was also sent. Finally, eviction petition was filed in October, 1989.
3. In the other revision, C.R.P. No. 2320 of 1999, which arises from R.C.O.P. No. 258 of 1989, rent are arrears from 1.3.1985 at the rate of Rs. 330 per month. There also a demand notice was issued on 17.6.1989 claiming rent arrears for 51 months. In that case also rent was not paid nor reply was sent and hence eviction petition was filed in October, 1989.
4. In both these petitions, both landlord and tenant are same though the building is different.
5. Tenant contended that landlord is very influential and rich person and he never used to collect rent and it is his habit to receive rent in lump and that has become a practice. They also said that by the time objection was filed, the entire rent arrears have been paid and hence eviction order should not be passed.
6. Both Rent Controller as well as appellate authority held that on its own showing tenant is a defaulter. By non-sending rent even after receipt of notice, only conclusion that could be arrived is that it is a 'wilful defaulter'. Subsequent payment of rent after institution of petition will not relieve tenant from the consequences of wilful default. It also believed in the evidence of P. W. 1, wherein he said that whenever demand was made personally to tenant, they will say that the authorities of municipality are/not available or cheque book is not available and by lame excuses rent was not being paid and it is not the case where they agreed to pay rent in lump.
7. After hearing both sides, I do not find any merits in the revision petitions.
8. Present contention that landlord was in the habit of receiving rent in lump and it was the practice cannot be accepted since such a contention is only afterthought. At the time when they received notice, no reply was sent. Landlord has said in the eviction petition that rent will have to be paid according to calendar month and tenant was not in them habit of paying rent in time. The fact that rent is payable every month according to contract is not disputed even is the counter. What tenant alleges is that landlord used to receive rent in lump and that has become practice, and consequently the earlier contract has not been notified. There is no merit in the said submission and both the authorities below disbelieved the evidence of petitioner herein. D.W. 1 is not competent to speak about such practice.
9. P.W.I has stated the reason why he could not get rent in time. Whenever demand is made, some lame excuse was given by municipality with an assurance that the amount will be sent soon.
10. The finding of the authorities below that tenant is a defaulter is therefore correct.
11. Under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, if two months notice is issued, intimating rent arrears and if the amount is not tendered within the time, the tenant must be deemed to be 'wilful defaulter'. In both these cases, landlord issued notice on 17.6.1989 and eviction petition was filed only in October, 1989. After receipt of notice, no reply was sent and rent arrears was also not paid. The amount due to landlord is also not the matter in dispute.
12. There is no explanation from tenant why it remained silent for more than 50 months continuously in not paying rent. At least when landlord issued notice, it would have been vigilant in paying rent. There is also no explanation why it had not paid rent as intimated in the notice dated 17.6.1989.
13. Merely because tenant has deposited rent long after eviction petition was filed that will not relieve tenant from the consequences of wilful default already committed. On the date of eviction petition, landlord had cause of action to evict tenant, since no amount was paid towards rent arrears that cause of action cannot be taken away for subsequent payment of rent arrears.
14. In the result, the concurrent findings of the authorities below are confirmed and both the revision petitions are dismissed with costs. Consequently, C.M.P. Nos. 13022 and 13023 of 1999 are dismissed.