Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.The learned senior counsel further submitted that the Rent Control Court erred in holding that the petitioners committed default in rent during eviction proceedings in the absence of any pleading put forth by the landlord. The admission made by the authorized representative of the tenants with regard to the reduction in rent during the pendency of the eviction proceedings was considered by the Rent Control Court to hold that the tenants committed default in payment of rent. Both the Courts below failed to see that the rent for the demised premises for every month during the eviction proceedings with deduction in quantum of rent paid and the same was accepted by the landlord. The recording of the Court below that there is no Court order to that effect in reduction of the tenancy amount is not proper. Further the landlord and his son were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 during October 2021 and March 2022, neither of them spoken to anything about non-payment of rent and reduced monthly payment. Had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis there been dispute in reduction of payment, both P.W.1 and P.W.2 could have very well stated about the same in their evidence. Further the Courts below not considered the fact that the tenants have made structural repairs, renovated the damages and modified the building with the consent of the landlord and incurred an expenditure of Rs.40 lakhs and after heavy rain during October 2021, the tenants incurred expenditure of another Rs.20 lakhs. The landlord enjoyed the renovation and expenditure incurred by the tenants had now conveniently denied the same. Further Ex.R2/photographs would confirm the renovation and expenditure incurred by the tenants. As regards the owners occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 the eviction petition ought to have been dismissed at the threshold for the only reason that material pleadings as contemplated not made in the petition and the same not proved by the landlord. The landlord if intended to built a hospital for his son, he could very well construct the hospital in Porur where a vacant site and adjoining building for more than 12000 sq.ft. is available with the landlord. Both the landlord and his son not denied that they are not owning any residential premises in Ashtalakshmi Nagar, Porur. He further submitted that the petition RCOP.No.1582 of 2017 was filed on 17.11.2017. On https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 04.08.2017, the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 came into force and as per Section 47, the old Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 had been repealed. Hence, both the Courts below ought to have not entertained the petition. Alternatively, he would further submit that the landlord had rented out the property to the tenant for commercial use, the rented property has been exclusively used for trade and commerce and further, the Commercial Courts Act came into force on 23.10.2015, hence appropriate suit ought to have filed before the Commercial Court.