Madras High Court
M/S.Vacher Mills Stores vs K.Gunasekaran on 6 December, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
C.R.P.No.2479 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 25.07.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
C.R.P.No.2479 of 2024
and
C.M.P. No.12935 of 2024
M/s.Vacher Mills Stores
A Regd.Partnership Firm,
Rep.by its Partners
Mr.K.Ani Vacher ... Petitioner / Respondent
Vs.
1.K.Gunasekaran
2.K.manimaran ... Respondents / Appellants
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India, to set aside the order of the unnumbered Docket Order in
M.P.SR.No.12561 of 2024 in R.L.T.O.P.No.117 of 2023, dated
25.03.2024, on the file of the XIII Judge Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Murugendran
For Respondents : Mr.P.Athi Veerarama Pandian
Page No.1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.2479 of 2024
ORDER
Challenging the order of the unnumbered Docket Order in M.P.SR.No.12561 of 2024 in R.L.T.O.P.No.117 of 2023, dated 25.03.2024, on the file of the XIII Judge Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the petitioner is before this Court with the present Revision.
2. Mr.G.Murugendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a tenant under the respondent since 1970, by virtue of an oral rental agreement under the erstwhile owner of the suit premises Behal Venkataesh and presently, the respondents became the owners of the premises. The petitioner carrying on wholesale and retail business in ball bearings and pulleys for the past 45 years and the premise is the principal place of business for the petitioner. The petitioner submits that fair rent was fixed at Rs.9235/- per month by this Court in R.C.O.P.No.550 of 2014, dated 21.07.2017. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondents filed a petition in RLTOP No.117 of 2023, before the Rent Court at Chennai, seeking a direction to direct the petitioner to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the “Demised Premises” admeasuring to an extent of 247 Sq.Ft., Page No.2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2479 of 2024 located in No.21, (New No.18), Mooker Nallamuthu Street, Chennai, under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Liabilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. Subsequently, the Revision petitioner filed an application in M.P.SR.No.12561 of 2024 seeking a direction to take necessary and appropriate legal action as against the respondents for the offences under Sections 193, 196 & 209 of IPC., and to enquire under Section 195 read with 340 Cr.P.C., and issue appropriate direction to the Registrar, Rent Control Court at Chennai, to file a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai, against the respondent under Sections 193, 196 & 209 of IPC. But, the said application was returned, as against which, the petitioner is before this Court with the present Revision.
3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that return of the application on the ground that the application to set aside the decree has been rejected is wholly unjustifiable. The Trial Court ought to have numbered the application and decided as to whether there was any perjury committed so as to enable prosecution." If the court didn't proceed against the party who committed the offence enumerated in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Page No.3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2479 of 2024 Section 195 Cr.P.C., then the aggrieved party could very well approach the court concerned with an application and alert the court to initiate proceedings under section 340 of Cr.P.C., Such an application can be filed at the court where false evidence was given or a false claim was made. The petitioner under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., filed to alert the Court to initiate proceedings under Section 340 but the Court below returned the same on the ground of maintainability without going through the merit of the case. The Court below should hold an enquiry regarding allegations of perjury made against the respondents and if the court came to a conclusion that there was perjury committed, the enquiry report may be forwarded by the lower court to the jurisdictional Magistrate, but if the court came to the conclusion that the perjury is not made out then the court should dismiss the petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Here in this case, the Court without considering the perjury committed, returned the petition on the ground of maintainability and it cannot be sustained. There is no proof to show that the respondents demanded the petitioner to execute a written rental agreement. The petition was fabricated and filed before the trial court by the respondents to mislead the trial Court and cause substantial injustice to the petitioner.
Page No.4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2479 of 2024
4. Mr.P.Athi Veerarama Pandian, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents are the absolute owners of the shop premises located in the ground floor of the building situated at No.21, (New No.18), Mooker Nallamuthu Street, Chennai – 600 001. The petitioner is the tenant under the respondents in respect of the “Demised Premises” and the petitioner is paying the monthly rent of Rs.3850/- though the fair rent is fixed at Rs.9,235/- per month from 25.03.2014, by an order dated 21.07.2017 in R.C.O.P.No.550 of 2014 and the rent is payable every month on or before 5th day of every succeeding month to the respondents.
5. The learned counsel further submitted that respondents state that after the commencement of The Tamilnadu Regulation of Rights and Liabilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (as amended) there is no rental agreement between respondents and petitioner, as required by the aforesaid Act. The respondents demanded and called upon the petitioner in person to enter into and execute a fresh rental agreement in writing with regard to the tenancy in respect of "Demised Premises from the middle of 2019 onwards. But, however, the petitioner failed to enter into a rental agreement in writing, as Page No.5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2479 of 2024 such the petitioner is liable to be evicted. The learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his contention, relied on the decision of this Court in Jata Shankar Mishra Vs. Chembadevi reported in (2023 (2) CTC 168).
6. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the tenant under the respondents in respect of the “Demised Premises”. The petitioner carrying on wholesale and retail business and the premise is the principal place of business. It is seen that the respondents filed a petition in R.L.T.O.P.No.117 of 2023, before the Rent Court at Chennai, to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the “Demised Premises”. The Revision petitioner filed an application in M.P.SR.No.12561 of 204 in R.L.T.O.P.No.117 of 2023 to take necessary and appropriate legal action as against the respondents for offences under Sections 193, 196 & 209 of IPC., and to enquire under Section 195 read with 340 Cr.P.C., and issue appropriate direction to the Registrar, Rent Control Court at Chennai to file a complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Page No.6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2479 of 2024 Chennai. The said application was returned. As against which the petitioner is before this Court with the present Revision.
8. It is also to be seen the petitioner earlier filed C.R.P.No.4913 of 2023 to set aside the docket order in M.P.Sr.No.45409 of 2023 in RLTOP.No.117 of 2023, dated 17.11.2023, rejecting the petitioner's application to cross examine the respondent / Landlord in view of restrictions placed in Section 36(2) of the Act, further no party can claim examination or cross-examination of witness as mandatory. This Court in CRP.No.4913 of 2023 by order dated 21.12.2023 directed the trial Court to number M.P.Sr.No.45409 of 2023 in RLTOP No.117 of 2023 and deposed of the same on merits within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is also to be reminded that the admitted position is that the petitioner / tenant is on oral lease in the demised property of the respondent / Landlord. The pleadings in the petition is that the petitioner was called upon to enter into and execute a fresh rental agreement on writing with regard to the tenancy in respect of demised premises from 2019 middle onwards and the petitioner failed to enter into rental agreement in writing which is the issue.
Page No.7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2479 of 2024
9. It is seen that by virtue of an oral rental agreement under the erstwhile owner of the suit premises, the petitioner continuing as tenant under the respondents. It was the respondents, who insisted the petitioner for fresh rental agreement, but the petitioner refused to come for registration fresh rental agreement. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents never demanded the petitioner to execute a written rental agreement. The petition filed by the respondents before the trial Court is to mislead the trial Court and cause substantial injustice to the petitioner. Further it is seen that the parties have not complied with the mandatory requirement under Section 4(2) of the TNRRRLT Act, 2017. As per the said Section, if the parties to an existing oral lease had not entered into an agreement within 575 days, as required under Section 2 of Sub-section 4, that by itself will constitute a ground for eviction. Clause(a) of Sub-section 2 of Section 21 does not make a difference as to who was responsible for non-execution of the lease document. The fact that the landlord is unwilling to execute a lease document does not make a difference. If a lease document is not entered within 575 days from the date of coming into force of the new Act, even if the landlord is responsible for such non-execution, the non-execution simplicitor gives a right to Page No.8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2479 of 2024 the landlord to seek eviction. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the respondent was not coming forward to execute the lease agreement, even assuming is to be true, it does not make any difference. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court, cannot be find fault with in returning the petition.
10. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
06.12.2024 Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes vv2 / mpk To
1.The XIII Judge Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
Page No.9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2479 of 2024 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2 PRE-DELIVERY ORDER MADE IN C.R.P.No.2479 of 2024 06.12.2024 Page No.10 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis