Madras High Court
Kuppusamy vs Surajbai on 20 July, 2012
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 20.7.2012 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P.NPD.No.2324 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 Kuppusamy ... Petitioner vs. Surajbai ... Respondent Civil revision petition filed against the judgement and decree dated 26.3.2012 passed by the VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.C.A.No.826 of 2007 confirming the order dated 28.9.2007 passed by the XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.C.O.P.No.1994 of 2006. For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji For Respondent : Mr.Shah & Shah ORDER
Animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 26.3.2012 passed by the VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.C.A.No.826 of 2007 confirming the order dated 28.9.2007 passed by the XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.C.O.P.No.1994 of 2006, this civil revision petition is filed.
2. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:
(i) The respondent herein/landlord filed the RCOP No.1994 of 2006, invoking Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, on the ground of 'wilful default' in paying the rents. The matter was resisted.
(ii) Whereupon the Rent Controller conducted enquiry. The Power of Attorney of the landlord-Jagadesh Prasad examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. The tenant examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 and marked Exs.R1 to R3.
(iii) Ultimately, the Rent Controller dismissed the petition.
(iv) Whereupon appeal RCA No.826 of 2007 was filed. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, after hearing both sides, reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and held that there was 'wilful default' in paying the rents and accordingly ordered eviction.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of eviction, this civil revision has been filed by the tenant on various grounds.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant, mainly placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his arguments, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus:
(i) This is not a case as though the agreed rent was refused to be paid and that there was wilful default.
(ii) This is a peculiar case, in which the landlord invoked the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller on the ground that the fair rent, which was fixed by the Rent Controller, was not paid by the tenant in favour of the landlord, even though finality had not been achieved in fixing the fair rent. Still the CRP relating to fixation of fair rent filed by the landlord is pending before this Court.
(iii) The present RCOP No.1994 of 2006 was filed when CRP relating to fixation of fair rent was pending before this Court. As such, the learned Rent Controller appropriately and appositely held that there was no wilful default in paying the rents. However, the appellate authority, without au fait with law simply held as though the difference between the agreed rent and fair rent was not paid and that it amounted to wilful default and accordingly ordered eviction warranting interference in revision
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent herein/landlord in a bid to extirpate and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the tenant, would develop his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:
(i) This is a case in which, the tenant, after fixation of fair rent by the Rent Controller, simply kept quiet and he never filed any RCA and obviously no revision also was filed. However, it was the landlord, who agitated as against the low fixation of fair rent by filing the RCA.
(ii) In the RCA the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller was confirmed. However, it was the landlord, who further took it on CRP and it is pending.
(iii) By no stretch of imagination it could be said that finality had not been achieved relating to the fixation of fair rent, because so far the tenant is concerned, he accepted the fixation of fair rent of Rs.2942/- per month and in such a case, he ought to have started paying it.
(iv) No doubt, during the pendency of the RCA filed by the landlord for enhancement of fixation of fair rent, the present R.C.O.P. was filed on the ground of wilful default in paying the fair rent and that would not in any way be taken advantage of, by the tenant for refraining from paying the fair rent.
Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would submit that there is nothing to find fault with the appellate Court's order and prays for the dismissal of the present CRP.
6. The point for consideration are as under:
(i) Whether the pendency of the C.R.P. filed by the landlord for enhancement of the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the appellate authority, would enure to the benefit of the tenant to refrain from paying the fair rent?
(ii) Whether such non-payment of fair rent would amount to wilful default in paying the rent?
(iii) Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the appellate authority?
7. At the outset itself I would like to refer to the decisions cited on both sides:
On the side of the revision petitioner/tenant, the following decisions are cited:
(i) Judgement of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (1981)3 SUPREME COURT CASES 103;
(ii) Judge of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2003)3 M.L.J.138 (S.C.) - P.M.PUNNOOSE V. K.M.MUNNERUDDIN AND OTHERS;
(iii) Judgement of this Court reported in 1995(I) CTC 446 NELSON AND OTHER V. P.RANGANATHAN MUDALIAR;
(iv) Judgement of this Court reported in 100 L.W.708 C.RANGANATHAN V. M.SURI .
On the side of the respondent herein/landlord the following precedents are cited:
(i) Judgement of this Court reported in 2001(5) CTC 837 C.RAGHUNATHA REDDY V. 1.S.RAJASEKARAN 2.P.DEVENDRAN;
(ii) Judgement of of this Court reported in 95 L.W.282 M.KASIM KHALEELI V. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP.BY THE ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER, MADRAS;
(iii) Judgement of this Court reported in 2009(2) CTC 595 K.KARUPPIAH V. B.KUBENDRAN;
(iv) Judgement of this Court reported in 2000(II) CTC 88 SUBBIAH V. GOPALAKRISHNA NAIDU.
9. I would like to suo moto refer to the following decision of the Honourable Apex Court:
(2002) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 98 J.J.LAL PVT.LTD.AND OTHERS V. M.R.MURALI AND ANOTHER, certain excerpts from it would run thus:
"24. However, it has been brought to our notice that there are several litigations pending between the parties. One of them, relevant for our purpose, is proceedings for fixation of fair rent. The rate of rent in the present proceedings have been found by the Appellate Authority and the High Court to be at Rs 1000 and 4000 respectively in respect of the two doors. The Rent Controller has found the fair rent of the premises to be still higher and the Appellate Authority has further enhanced the rate of rent in the proceedings for fixation of fair rent applicable to the premises. The tenants have filed civil revisions in the High Court alleging the fixation of fair rent to be on the higher side. To give a quietus to the dispute as to the rate at which the tenants should pay the rent of the premises we deem it proper to direct that the tenants shall remain liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs 1000 per month in respect of Door No. 264 and at the rate of Rs 4000 per month for Door No. 244 for the period for which contractual rate of rent applies. They shall also remain liable to pay fair rent as determined in the proceedings relating to its fixation as and when they achieve a finality. So long as the proceedings for determination of fair rent do not achieve a finality the tenants must comply with the interim order dated 11-1-1999 whereby this Court directed the tenants to deposit rent at the rate of Rs 13.331 (sic) in respect of Door No. 244 and at the rate of Rs 1000 per month in respect of Door No. 264 with effect from 20-7-1998. The tenants, to be entitled to continue in possession of the premises, must clear all the arrears of rent within an appointed time and then pay regularly, month by month, the rent which is legitimately due and payable by them."
(emphasis supplied)
10. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid decisions would clearly show that once the tenant accepted the fair rent and did not agitate by approaching the higher fora under the Rent Control Act, it would be taken that finality has been achieved so far the tenant is concerned and he should pay the enhanced fair rent fixed and simply because, the landlord moved the appellate forum and thereafter, the revisional forum for enhancement of the fair rent fixed, that would not enure to the benefit of the tenant to plead that finality has not been achieved in fixing fair rent.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant would argue that there is every likelihood of the High Court while deal with that CRP concerned, even reducing the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller.
12. Such an argument is a far fetched one because the tenant has not even chosen to prefer appeal as against the fixation of fair rent by the Rent Controller. In view of the categorical finding by the appellate authority that there was wilful default in paying the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller and that is in commensurate with the aforesaid decisions, I am of the considered view that no interference with such order is required.
13. Accordingly, the points are decided in favour of the landlord and as against the tenant.
14. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.
15. On hearing this order, the learned counsel for the tenant would pray for six months' time for vacating the premises.
16. I could see considerable force in his submission as in these days, for shifting the business, namely, cycle repair business, the tenant might require considerable time. Accordingly, six months' time is granted, subject to the condition that the tenant should pay past arrears as well as the future arrears of rent without any default. To that effect within 15 days, an affidavit shall be filed by the revision petitioner herein.
msk To
1. The VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. The VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai