Madras High Court
M/S. Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd vs Mrs.V. Sumitra on 21 December, 2011
Author: R.Sudhakar
Bench: R.Sudhakar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.12.2011
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
CRP (NPD) Nos. 4305 & 4307 of 2011
and
M.P.Nos. 1 & 1 of 2011
1. M/s. Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd.,
rep. By its Managing Director
Mr. R. Subramanian
Cabin-A Flat No.2,
" Habib Complex" 2nd floor,
No.5 Durgabai Deshmukh Road,
R.A.Puram, Chennai.28.
2. R. Subramanian ... Petitioners
(In both CRPs.)
Vs.
Mrs.V. Sumitra ... Respondent
( In CRP(NPD) No.4305/2011)
1.Mrs.V. Sumitra
2. V. Lokeswar ... Respondents
( In CRP(NPD) No.4307/2011)
Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act against the order dated 11.8.2011 passed by the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, (Appellate Authority) Chennai in M.P.Nos. 377 and 378 of 2011 in RCA Nos. 371 and 372 of 2011 respectively, which were filed against the order and decree dated 10.12.2010 passed by the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Controller) in M.P.Nos. 63 and 64 of 2010 in RCOP Nos. 1008 and 1009 of 2009 respectively.
For Petitioners : Mr. Prakash Goklaney
For Respondents : Mr. K. Bijaysundar
......
COMMON ORDER
These two civil revision petitions are filed against the order dated 11.8.2011 passed by the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, (Appellate Authority) Chennai in M.P.Nos. 377 and 378 of 2011 in RCA Nos. 371 and 372 of 2011 respectively, which were filed against the order and decree dated 10.12.2010 passed by the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Controller) in M.P.Nos. 63 and 64 of 2010 in RCOP Nos. 1008 and 1009 of 2009 respectively.
2. These two civil revision petitions are filed challenging the interim orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in M.P.Nos. 377 and 378 of 2011 in RCA Nos.371 and 372 of 2011 and the order in M.P.No. 377 of 2011 reads as follows:-
" Heard the counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent. It is further submitted that the respondent is taking hasty steps to evict the petitioner. If an order of stay is not granted, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss. Hence interim stay is granted till 12.9.11 on condition that the petitioner has to deposit the rental arrears as stated in the order in MP 63/10 Rs.1,61,487/- on or before 12.9.11. Call on 13.9.11."
The order passed in M.P.No. 378 of 2011 reads as follows:-
" Heard the counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent. It is further submitted that the respondent is taking hasty steps to evict the petitioner. If an order of stay is not granted, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss. Hence interim stay is granted till 12.9.11 on condition that the petitioner has to deposit the rental arrears as stated in the order in MP 64/10 Rs.1,73,220/- on or before 12.9.11. Call on 13.9.11."
3. The respondents in both the revision petitions are the landlords. They filed RCOP Nos. 1008 and 1009 of 2009 in June 2009 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period December 2008 to May 2009. Pending rent control proceedings, M.P.Nos.63 and 64 of 2010 were filed on 12.2.2010 under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act to stop all further proceedings and to direct the tenant to pay the arrears of rent etc.
4. The revision petitioners through their company secretary filed a counter affidavit in M.P.Nos. 63 and 64 of 2010 taking a plea that there was no landlord tenant relationship and the tenancy is disputed. The Rent Controller passed an order directing the deposit of arrears of rent by an order dated 10.12.2010. A copy of which has not been filed in the typedset of papers already filed. There was no representation on behalf of the revision petitioners/ tenant in the subsequent hearings. On 6.01.2011, holding that the tenant has not appeared, the following order was passed in both the M.P.Nos. 63 and 64 of 2010.
" No representation for respondent. Compliance of conditional order not reported by respondent. Hence, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings in the main RCOP is stopped".
5. Since the proceedings in the RCOP Nos. 1008 and 1009 of 2009 were stopped and the revision petitioners failed to comply with the conditional order, the following orders were passed in RCOP Nos. 1008 and 1009 of 2009.
" (6) After close and careful perusal of the records and document in 11(4) petition this Court was passed the conditional order on 10.12.10 directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,61,487/- into Court on or before 03.1.2011, call on 04.1.2011. On 04.1.2011, the counsel for the petitioners present and stated that conditional order not complied and the case posted for reporting compliance call on 6.1.2011 failing which, further orders will be passed. On 6.1.2011, this Court ordered in MP that " No representation for respondent. Compliance of conditional order not reported by the respondent. Hence, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings in the main RCOP is stopped".
(7) On a plain reading of the records placed before this Court, it is clearly seen that the respondent had not taken any steps to make out the payment of amount in any manner prescribed under the law and the respondent had not complied with the conditional order. Since conditional order was not complied, MP 63/10 was allowed on 6.1.2011.
(8) MP No. 63/10 filed u/s 11(4) of Act is allowed. Since MP filed u/Sec. 11(4) of the Act is allowed, all further proceedings in the main RCOP is stopped. Eviction ordered. Time for eviction 2 months. No costs. "
Order in RCOP No. 1009 of 2009 reads as follows:-
" (6) After close and careful perusal of the records and document in 11(4) petition this Court was passed the conditional order on 10.12.10 directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,73,226/- into Court on or before 03.1.2011, call on 04.1.2011. On 04.1.2011, the counsel for the petitioners present and stated that conditional order not complied and the case posted for reporting compliance call on 6.1.2011 failing which, further orders will be passed. On 6.1.2011, this Court ordered in MP that " No representation for respondent. Compliance of conditional order not reported by the respondent. Hence, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings in the main RCOP is stopped".
(7) On a plain reading of the records placed before this Court, it is clearly seen that the respondent had not taken any steps to make out the payment of amount in any manner prescribed under the law and the respondent had not complied with the conditional order. Since conditional order was not complied, MP 64/10 was allowed on 6.1.2011.
(8) MP No. 64/10 filed u/s 11(4) of Act is allowed. Since MP filed u/Sec. 11(4) of the Act is allowed, all further proceedings in the main RCOP is stopped. Eviction ordered. Time for eviction 2 months. No costs. "
6. The tenants/ revision petitioners filed RCA Nos. 371 and 372 of of 2011 primarily contending that the landlord/ tenant relationship was disputed and therefore, such orders could not be passed. In appeal, stay petition was filed and interim stay was granted on condition against which, the present civil revision petitions are filed.
7. Mr. Prakash Gokulaney, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners primarily contended that there is no landlord and tenant relationship and therefore, the Court below was not justified in ordering payment of rent.
8. The plea of the revision petitioner is totally false and misconceived. It is taken to avoid the deposit of rent as ordered by the Rent Controller and therefore, the order under challenge does not deserve to be interfered with for the following reasons.
(i) In the applications filed under Section 11 (4) of the Act, the revision petitioners failed to appear before the Court below. At the time of enquiry in the said applications, the revision petitioners/ respondents filed only one document viz., Challan-Form 20B Annual return - list of shareholders-series. On the contrary, the landlord has submitted Exs.P1 to P15 out of which, Ex.P.14 is the notice dated 23.2.2009 addressed to one R.Subramanian, Managing Director of M/s. Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd., which reads as follows:-
" We deep regret we have to inform you, that you have defaulted in the rent and aminities charges amounting to Rs.14,802, since 1st August 2009. Total Rs.14,802 x 7 months = 1,03,614/-.
Further you have also defaulted in paying T.N.E.B. Charges due Nov.08 Rs.11,189/- and Rs.1,478/- due Jan 2009. total Rs.12,867/-.
Please note that you have paid advance of Rs.60,000/- for door No.33/1 new 81/1 and Rs.40,000/- for door No.33/2 new 81/2 Total Rs.1,00,000/-
As on date rent due upto Feb.2009 amounts to Rs.3,614/- less advance. It is also observed that the shop is locked since Dec.2008.
Please take notice that you are here by requested to vacate the shop and to handover the shop in vacant possession. Please pay T.N.E.B.Charges.
You are requested to do this before 7th March 2009. Your belated action will result in paying extra rental fee.
Looking forward for an early action and co-operation.
We hope that you will act judiciously to avoid unnecessary action."
9. Ex.P.15 is the letter dated 26.2.2010 issued by Subiksha Trading Service Limited to V. Sumithra/ the landlord and the letter is self-explanatory. It accepts that the revision petitioners are the tenant of the demised premises. These two documents have not been disputed by the revision petitioners/ tenant. The respondent/ landlord prima facie has established the factum of landlord and tenant relationship by various documents viz., Exs.P1 to P15. Ex.P.15, in particular, is the letter issued by the revision petitioners accepting the tenancy. The plea of no landlord and tenant relationship appears to be a self-serving and false statement without any basis. On the question of default in payment of rent, the interim order passed by the Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority is not seriously challenged and there is no material to show that rents were paid. Therefore, there is no good reasons to interfere with the orders of the Court below. The plea taken disputing the landlord and tenant relationship is not substantiated by any material evidence and therefore, there is no merit in the revision petitions and accordingly, the revision petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. No costs.
10. Mr. Prakash Goklany, learned counsel for the revision petitioner prays time to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the premises stating that the materials are kept inside the demised premises. Accordingly, time is granted till 9.1.2012 to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent and the petitioners are directed to file affidavit of undertaking to vacate and handover possession of the premises.
For filing affidavit of undertaking, post on 23.12.2011.
ra To
1.The VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. The XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai =================================================================================== This matter was listed today under the caption for filing affidavit of undertaking.
The matter was listed today for filing affidavit of undertaking by the petitioner. However, today, no affidavit of undertaking is filed. Therefore, paragraph 10 of the order dated 21.12.2012 is ordered to be deleted. The landlord is entitled to proceed for eviction as per law.
23.12.2011 ra