C.R. Prasad vs N. Vijayalakshmi

N. Kirubakaran, J.—The Respondent has been attempting to dislodge the Petitioner from the Petition premises and successfully, in this case, eviction is ordered.

The Petitioner is a tenant under the Respondent in respect of the Ground Floor on the road side of Vysial Street, Coimbatore-641 001 and two rooms in the II Floor, on a monthly rent of Rs.6,300/-. Since there was default in payment of rent for a period of two months, namely, October and November, 2009, the present litigation was started. On contest, the learned Rent Controller, ordered eviction, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, as well, resulting in this Civil Revision Petition.

It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner/Tenant that the Respondent is interested only in evicting the Petitioner by hook or crook and that was the reason for filing two R.C.O.Ps. earlier and subsequently, the present R.C.O.P. has been filed. It is pointed out that earlier, the Respondent had filed R.C.O.P. No. 200 of 2003 for eviction on the ground of wilful default and after the dismissal of the same, R.C.O.P. No. 86 of 2007 was filed on the very same ground. Both the cases were lost as consolidated advance to the tune of Rs.2,35,000/- was available with the Respondent. The Respondent/Landlady took out an Application in I.A. No.46 of 2008 in R.C.O.P. No.86 of 2007 initiated by her earlier and the said Petition was also ordered. Pursuant to that, the Respondent deposited the entire excess amount. Thereafter only, the present R.C.O.P. was filed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that only with mala fide intention, the present R.C.O.P. has been filed alleging that the Petitioner committed wilful default, that too, for a period of 2 months, namely, October and November, 2009. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Respondent used to get rent in lumpsum and believing her, the Petitioner had paid the rent in lumpsum. Therefore, there is no deliberate intention to commit wilful default. By the act of the Respondent, in accepting lumpsum amount as rent, the Petitioner took it for granted that there is no problem in paying the rent in lumpsum. If the Respondent was so serious, she should have called upon the Petitioner to pay the monthly rent regularly. According to the learned Counsel, for eviction on the ground wilful default, the default should be wilful, intentional and deliberate. However, in this case, there is no such intentional or deliberate default. In support of her contention, she also relied upon the Judgment of this Court in Yashodharan and another v. M. Lalitha, 2011 (1) MLJ 1206. Therefore, the learned Counsel seeks to set aside the impugned Order.

On the other hand, Mr. P. Valliappan, learned Counsel for the Respondent/Landlady would submit that the Petitioner is always in the habit of paying rents irregularly and his conduct would prove that the default is intentional and deliberate. Therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that no leniency should be shown to the Petitioner.

Heard the parties and perused the records.

Technically speaking, though default in payment of two months'' rent appears to be not deliberate, the history of the case would reveal that the Petitioner has, in fact, committed wilful default. The Petitioner was also sued for eviction on the ground of wilful default, earlier, by the Respondent by filing R.C.O.P. Nos. 200 of 2003 & 86 of 2007. Admittedly, both the cases got dismissed only for the reason that the Respondent was having Rs. 2,35,000/- as advance. To make sure that the Petitioner is evicted on the ground of wilful default, the Respondent/Landlady, in an intelligent manner, took steps by filing I.A. No.46 of 2008 in R.C.O.P. No. 86 of 2007 seeking permission to deposit the excess advance amount lying with her, as under the provisions of the Rent Control Act, the Landlord/Landlady can retain only one month''s advance. The said Petition was also allowed. Therefore, by depositing the excess amount, the Respondent was able to get over the technical point, which was in favour of the Petitioner.

When the Respondent has been very curious to evict the Petitioner and have been filing case after case, the Petitioner should have been vigilant enough to see that the monthly rent is promptly paid. Even after the above bad experience, the Petitioner kept on paying the rent in lumpsum, which only goes to show that the Petitioner has been deliberately, intentionally and irregularly paying the amount. Both the Courts below relied upon the evidence of the Petitioner herein as RW1 and based on the admission made by him, during cross-examination, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner had committed wilful default. The following portion of his evidence would prove that the view taken by both the Courts are valid and the same cannot be set aside:

VERNACULLAR MATTER

The Courts below also relied on the following Judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and this Court while ordering eviction:

(i) S. Sundaram v. V.R. Pattabhiraman, AIR 1985 SC 582;

(ii) Muktha Bai v. Adinarayana Chetty, 1989 (1) MLJ 502;

(iii) P.M. Punnoose v. K.M. Munneruddin, 2003 (3) CTC 348 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 2993;

(iv) V. Kannadasan v. K. Swaminatha Pathar, 2007 (2) CTC 127; and

(v) V. Dinesh Kumar v. Dr. Indira Bai, 2007 (2) MLJ 976.

The Order passed by the Courts below cannot be interfered with as it is based on evidence and settled position of law. Further, the conduct of the Petitioner would prove that, in spite of the earlier Eviction proceedings, the Petitioner did not discharge his duty as a tenant by tendering the monthly rent payable to the Respondent regularly, which invited the Order of Eviction.

There is no quarrel with regard to the Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. However, as stated above, the conduct of the Petitioner shows that the non-payment is wilful and deliberate and therefore, the said Judgment is of no use to the case of the Petitioner.

For the reasons stated above, the Revision fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed.

Taking into consideration that the Petitioner is running a mechanic shop in the premises in question, it is appropriate to grant six months'' time to the Petitioner to vacate, which time limit has been fairly offered by Mr. P. Valliappan, learned Counsel for the Respondent, without even asking for it. The Petitioner is directed to file an Affidavit of Undertaking to the effect that he will vacate and hand over possession of the Petition premises directly to the Respondent/Landlady, on or before 21st December, 2014. The said Affidavit of undertaking shall be filed on or before 25.6.2014 failing which the Petitioner would be entitled to avail only 2 months'' time to vacate as granted by the Trial Court.

Call the matter on 26.6.2014 for compliance.