R. Kanniappan vs G. Sundari Ammal and Others

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—The revision petitioner as well as the learned Junior counsel appearing for the respondents are present

and heard both of them.

C.R.P (NPD) No. 428 of 2009 has been directed against the Judgment in R.C.A. No. 685 of 2006 on the file of VIII Judge, Court of Small

Causes, Chennai which had arisen out of an order of eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 2321 of 2003 on the file of XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes,

Chennai, which was filed u/s 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to ""Act"") for eviction

on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period from March 2000 till the filing of the petition i.e., 6.11.2003 (44 months). C.R.P

(NPD) No. 429 of 2009 has been directed against the Judgement passed in RCA No. 684 of 2006 on the file of VIII Judge, Court of Small

Causes, Chennai which had arisen out of an order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 425 of 2005 on the file of XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai

which was filed u/s 10(2)(i) of the Act for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent from November 2003 till January 2005. In

both R.C.O.Ps, the respondent has filed counter contending that he has not committed wilful default and that subsequent rents were deposited in

his name in Tamil Nadu State Apex Cooperative Bank Limited, Chindadripet Branch in S.B. A/c No. 7324 (in his Savings Bank Account) .

The learned Rent Controller had tried both R.C.O.Ps jointly and on the side of the petitioners/landlords P.W. 1 (1st Petitioner) and P.W. 2 (3rd

Petitioner) were examined and Exs. P1 to P9 were marked and on the side of the respondent, R.W. 1 was examined and Exs. R1 to R17 were

exhibited. After going through the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Rent Controller has come to an unassailable conclusion that the

tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and ultimately allowed both R.C.O.Ps for eviction granting two months time for the tenant to

vacate and hand over the vacant possession. Aggrieved over the finding of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant had preferred an appeal in

RCA.Nos.685 of 2006 and 684 of 2006 respectively before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, who finding no reason to interfere with

the findings of the learned Rent Controller had dismissed the appeall thereby confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. Nos.

2321 of 2003 and 425 of 2005 which necessitated the tenant to approach this Court with these revisions.

It is well settled proposition of law that unless it is shown that the Courts below are perverse in arriving at a conclusion and that the Courts

below have failed to look into the evidence produced before the Trial Court/Rent Controller, a revisional Court cannot interfere with a concurrent

finding of the Courts below. Even though the revision petitioner would state that he had deposited the future rents in a bank, it is an admitted case

of the revision petitioner that the future rents were deposited only in his name in the Savings Bank Account in Tamil Nadu State Apex Cooperative

Bank Limited. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that there was no material placed before them to show that the tenant had deposited

the future rents and also the rent due for the defaulted period mentioned in the respective petitions, without any default by the tenant. Under such

circumstances, there is absolutely no material placed before this Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below in R.C.A. Nos.

685 of 2006 and 684 of 2006.

At this juncture, the tenant/revision petitioner asked for one year time to vacate and hand over the vacant possession to the landlords. On the

other hand, the learned Junior Counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords would contend that three months time may be granted. Under such

circumstances, I am of the view that six months time may be granted to the revision petitioner/tenant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession

to the landlords.

In fine, these revision petitions are dismissed confirming the Judgment passed in RCA Nos. 685 of 2006 and 684 of 2006 on the file of the

learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Chennai. The revision petitioner/tenant is granted six months time

from today to vacate and hand over the vacant possession to the landlords. The Affidavit of undertaking to be filed within a week. No costs.

Consequently, connected M.Ps are also dismissed.