Madras High Court
Sowkath Ali And 2 Others vs Pappu And 3 Others on 17 October, 2000
ORDER
1. This revision is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruchirappalli, in R.C.A.No.9 of 1988 confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli, in R.C.O.P.NO.190 of 1981. The landlords are the revision petitioners before this Court.
2. The petition for eviction was filed by the revision petitioners, herein on the ground of wilful default and owner's requirement. On both the grounds, the authorities below rejected the claim of the landlords and hence the present revision petition.
3. As regards the wilful default, the period of default complained is from 1.11.1980 to 31.5.1981. In this context the tenant was already in possession of the property as a tenant under the father of the revision petitioners. It was only by virtue of a partition in the month of January, 1980, the petitioners became entitled to the petition property. The complaint of the landlords is that instead of paying the rent, the tenant had paid the property tax for a sum of Rs.250 on 28.5.1981 under Ex.R.16. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, the voluntary payment of tax by the tenant was not called for. He would also point out that after he became entitled to the property, the tenant had been paying rent for the months of April, to September, 1980. It was subsequently he had defaulted in payment of rent and on the next day after the notice was issued, the tenant had paid the property tax under Ex.R.16. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, the conduct on the part of the tenant was not bona fide and that the remittal of the property tax under Ex.R.16 was only to eliminate the allegation of wilful default. Such voluntary payments will not bind the landlords, nor will it absolve the wilful nature of the default on the part of the tenant. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following judgments:-
(i) Jagannatha Chettiar, R. v. Swarnambal, 1984 (97) L.W. 182; (ii) Natara-jan, C. v. Anandammal, 1989 (1) L.W. 29; (iii) Mrs. Manoranjitham v. Mrs. T.S.Gangabai, 1991 (2) L.W. 203 .
4. In order to consider whether the default is wilful or not, the primary issue, to be considered is the conduct on the part of the tenant as well as whether there was any understanding between the landlord and the tenant that the tenant would be permitted to pay the property tax. In the judgment reported in Jagannatha Chettiar, R. v. Swarnambal, 1984 (97) LW 182, cited above, in paragraph No.11 of the judgment, Ratnam,J. as he then was, had specifically pointed out that the evidence does not disclose that on any prior occasion the landlord had directed the tenant to pay the property tax or other charges payable by him on the understanding that such payments if made by the tenant can be adjusted against the rent payable by the tenant to the landlord.
5. Therefore, the abovementioned judgments do not disclose on the facts the possibility of any understanding between the landlord and the tenant that part of the rental amount may be paid towards property tax. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner became entitled to the property only by virtue of a partition in the beginning of the year 1980. But under Exs.R.8 to R.13, it is seen that the tenant, has been paying the property tax from the year 1976 itself. Even though some part of the rental amounts from the months of April, to September, 1980, have been paid by Money Order in favour of the petitioners, it is seen that under Exs. R.14 and R.15, the tenant had paid the property tax for the said period also after the petitioner became the owner. This payment has been made even after the revision petitioners had become entitled to the property. Therefore, from the aforesaid circumstances, it can be inferred that there was an understanding between the tenant and the landlord and subsequently with the revision petitioners also that part of the rental amount has to be paid towards property tax also. By filing Exs.R.8 to R.13 it has been clearly established that there was understanding between the tenant and the father of the revision petitioner to pay the property tax. After the revision petitioners had become the owner of the property, there was no instruction, admittedly, requiring the tenant not to pay the property tax.
6. Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, I am not satisfied that the landlords had established any wilful default or supine indifference on the part of the tenant in having paid the property tax. Therefore, I am unable to set aside the concurrent findings as regards the default.
7. With reference to the owners' occupation the ground on which the landlord had required the premises is that sons of the petitioner were studying in a village at Kulathur and that therefore, he required the premises for shifting his children to Tiruchirapalli for better education. In this context, both the Courts below have concurrently found that after the filing of the eviction petition, the adjacent property of the same description fell vacant and the said property had been let out for lease on higher rent. It is true that the said property fell vacant only subsequent to the filing of the petition and that the choice of the premises is no doubt within the discretion of the landlord. But considering that all the houses are of the same description and situate adjacently, if the landlord had really required the premises for shifting his family, he could have made use of the premises which fell vacant subsequently. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding relating to the owner's occupation also.
8. In the result, there are no merits in the above revision petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.