S. Prabhakaran vs S. Ranganayaki

V. Kanagaraj, J.—The above Civil Revision Petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 26.3.2004 made in R.C.A.No.71

of 2003 by the Court of Rent Control Appellate Authority (I Additional Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore, thereby confirming the fair and decretal

order dated 29.4.2003 made in R.C.O.P.no.256 of 2002 by the Court of Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif), Coimbatore.

Tracing the history of the case, what comes to be known is that the respondent herein has filed R.C.O.P.No.256 of 2002 on the file of the

Court of Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif), Coimbatore u/s 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent

Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') seeking for an order of eviction of the petitioner herein and to hand over possession of the

petition mentioned property to the respondent herein on ground of wilful default in payment of rent, own occupation and for costs; that the learned

Rent Controller ( I Additional District Munsif), Coimbatore on the basis of the above pleadings by parties and upon hearing the learned counsel for

both would ultimately allow the above R.C.O.P. with cost, further granting one month''s time for eviction, on ground that the petitioner herein has

failed to pay the arrears of rent on or before 28.4.2004 as directed by this Court, and has also failed to comply with the conditional order of this

Court dated 7.3.2002. Aggrieved against the said fair and decretal order, the petitioner herein has preferred R.C.A.No.71 of 2003 before the

Rent Control Appellate Authority, (Additional Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in consideration of

the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both would ultimately dismiss the R.C.A., thereby confirming the fair and

decretal order passed by the Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif), Coimbatore, further granting two months time for eviction, testifying the

validity of which, the petitioner has come forward to file this Civil Revision Petition on grounds such as that the Courts below ought to have

considered that the averments made in the petition filed by the landlady is misconceived and the reason for wilful default has not been substantially

proved; that the learned Rent Controller failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner had filed R.C.O.P.No.86 of 2003, which is pending on the

file of the learned Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif), Coimbatore and the petitioner is regularly depositing the rent into the Court and

the admitted rent as per written lease deed dated 9.12.1999 between the petitioner and respondent is only Rs.1,500/- per month; that the learned

Rent Controller has not perused any document filed by the petitioner and had passed an order summarily without assigning any reason and the

same is a non-speaking order; that the learned Rent Controller failed to note that the above R.C.O.P.No.256 of 2001 has been filed without giving

two months time as statutory period for complying wilful default as per the Supreme Court Judgments since the notice issued by the respondent

was on 20.11.2002 the petition was filed on 20.12.2002 and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held as a wilful defaulter; that the learned Rent

Controller has failed to apply his mind to the above fact and on this ground alone the above R.C.O.P. has to be dismissed. On such grounds, the

petitioner would pray for the relief extracted supra.

During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on both sides would only reiterate what they have already pleaded before both the lower

forums dealing with the facts and circumstances of the case and on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he would cite the following

judgments of which the first one is reported in Venugopal Reddiar Vs. Muthammal, , wherein, a learned single Judge of this Court has held as

follows:

Even if Section 11 of the Rent Control Act applies to the present case, the learned subordinate Judge has not chosen to follow the procedure

prescribed in the said section. u/s 11(3), the Court has to first determine summarily the rent to be paid or deposited. That means the Court has to

decide what is the amount to be paid by the tenant or deposited by him under that section. Without deciding that amount, the Court cannot

straightway pass an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises

This is not the condition, that is prevalent in the case in hand. Since, the learned single Judge has arrived at the conclusion pertaining to the facts

connected to the case dealt with by him wherein such a conclusion is able to be arrived at and the same is not prevalent in the case in hand and

hence, this judgment cannot be applied to the present case.

The second judgment cited is one reported from AIR 1995 SC 582, rendered in S.SUNDARAM V. V.R.PATTIBHIRAMAN, wherein, it is

held as follows:

A consensus of the meaning of the words ''wilful default'' appears to indicate that default in order to be wilful must be intentional, deliberate,

calculated and conscious, with full knowledge of legal consequences flowing therefrom. Taking for instance a case where a tenant commits default

after default despite oral demands or reminders and fails to pay the rent without any just or lawful cause, it cannot be said that he is not guilty of

wilful default because such a course of conduct manifestly amounts to wilful default as contemplated either by the Tamil Nadu Act or other State

Acts which are in pari materia''.

Since in the present case, the wilful default is intentional, as it comes to be assessed by both the Courts below regarding the facts and

circumstances and the evidence placed on record, this judgment also does not become applicable to the case in hand.

The third judgment cited by the learned counsel is one reported in AIR 2000 SC 1880, rendered in M/s. CHORDIA AUTOMOBILES Vs.

S.MOOSA AND OTHERS, wherein, it is held:

.. Default matures into a wilful default only if defaulted amount is not paid within a period of two months from the date of notice and the landlord,

however, did not wait for expiry of period of two months of notice period and filed eviction sit and therefore, the tenant cannot be held to be a

wilful defaulter

This condition is not prevalent in the case in hand and therefore, this judgment is also not applicable to the present case.

The other judgment cited by the learned counsel is one reported in P.M. Punnoose Vs. K.M. Munneruddin and Others, , where, a single

question was decided as to, ""whether the appellant could be held to have committed wilful default in payment of rent, within the meaning of Section

10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, where the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment of the

Appellate Authority and in the case on hand, since being a concurrent decision and not a reversed one, the preposition held therein to the effect of

allowing the Appeal does not merit acceptance.

The other judgment cited by the learned counsel is reported in 2000 (2) CTC 747, rendered in MOHAMMED NIYAMATHULLAH Vs. V.

SAHITHA. This has been decided in the context of an application filed u/s 11(4) having wrongly filed the same u/s 11(3). The learned Judge of

this Court has held that "".. quoting of wrong provision of law would not by itself dis-entitle the petitioner from seeking relief"", thereby setting aside

the order of the Rent Controller rendered on the basis of the wrong provision having been quoted by the petitioner therein. This condition is not

prevalent in the case in hand and therefore, this judgment could not also be considered for a decision to be reached regarding the facts of the case

in hand.

A careful consideration of the facts pleaded and the circumstances brought forth in the context of law pertaining to the subjects, particularly, in

consideration of the orders passed by both the Courts below, this Court is able to find that the Rent Controller and thereafter, the Appellate

Authority have meticulously following the procedures established by law and having ordered for a thorough enquiry to be held, permitting the

parties to record their evidence in the manner required under the procedures established by law and in due consideration of the evidence placed on

record and appreciating the same in the proper manner, the Rent Controller has validly arrived at the conclusion to hold the tenant a chronic

defaulter, thereby ordering the eviction, which has been rightly confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority also.

In both the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, this Court is not able to see any patent error or

perversity in approach and hence, the above Civil Revision Petition becomes liable only to be dismissed and hence, the following order.

In result,

i. the above Civil Revision Petition is dismissed;

ii. The fair and decretal order dated 26.3.2004 made in R.C.A.No.71 of 2003 by the Court of Rent Control Appellate Authority (I Additional

Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore, is confirmed;

iii. Consequently, C.M.P.No.8369 of 2004 and V.C.M.P.No.10249 of 2004, are also dismissed;

iv. There shall be no order as to costs.