V. Karuthapandian vs S. Raghavan

N. Kirubakaran, J.—C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1985 of 2014 is filed challenging the order dated 08.04.2014 passed in R.C.A. No. 445 of 2012 by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction dated 28.06.2012 passed by the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No. 1614 of 2010 while C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1986 of 2014 is filed challenging the order dated 08.04.2012 passed in R.C.A. No. 444 of 2012 confirming the dismissal of R.C.O.P. No. 674 of 2011, filed by the tenant seeking permission to deposit the monthly rent of the petition premises from November, 2010 onwards, by order dated 28.06.2012.

The facts of the case are as follows:

The 1st petitioner in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1985 of 2014/petitioner in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1986 of 2014 is a tenant in respect of the premises bearing Flat No.13, Block No.42, Cosmopolitan Colony, Kamarajar Avenue, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai  41 under the respondent and according to the respondent/landlord, the 2nd petitioner in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1985 of 2014 is a sub-tenant under the 1st petitioner. The respondent/landlord had let out the premises to the 1st petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.1500/- for residential purpose. Since there was default in payment of rent, the respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P.No. 1614 of 2010 for eviction on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent from July, 2009 and sub-letting of the premises in question by the tenant to the 2nd petitioner in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1985 of 2014. Both the Courts below, concurrently, held against the petitioners, on both the grounds and the said order is being challenged in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1985 of 2014. Subsequent to the filing of R.C.O.P. No. 1614 of 2010 for eviction by the respondent/landlord, the tenant filed R.C.O.P. No. 674 of 2011 seeking permission to deposit the monthly rent in respect of the premises in question from November, 2010, onwards. The said R.C.O.P. came to be dismissed by order dated 28.06.2012 and the said order was also confirmed on appeal. As already stated, the said order is being challenged in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1986 of 2014.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner(s).

The Courts below, taking into consideration, that there is no proof for payment of rent from October, 2009 to November, 2010, concluded that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent. As far as sub-letting is concerned, based on the evidence of the 1st petitioner in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1985 of 2014/petitioner in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1986 of 2014, that he alone took the petition premises on rent, for residential purpose; that he is doing Halwa business and that the 2nd petitioner in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1985 of 2014 is also residing in the petition premises, the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority, came to the conclusion that when the tenancy is in favour of the 1st petitioner in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1985 of 2014/petitioner in C.R.P.(NDP) No. 1986/2014, there is no occasion for the 2nd petitioner in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1985/2014 to be in the petition premises and therefore, holding that sub-letting is also proved, ordered eviction on both the grounds. Since the eviction order passed by the Courts below, is based on evidence of R.W.1, namely, the tenant, it cannot be set aside and the same is confirmed. Hence, C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1985 of 2014 is dismissed. No costs.

As far as C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1986 of 2014 is concerned, the revision petitioner/tenant filed R.C.O.P. No. 674 of 2011 u/s 8(5) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, contending that when the monthly rent payable by him for the months of November and December, 2010 was refused to be received by the respondent. Since the respondent failed to give bank details, the petition was filed. The Rent Controller, taking note of non-payment of rent from July, 2009, in the absence of any proof for payment and also tendering of rent after filing of R.C.O.P. No. 1614 of 2010 for eviction on the ground of wilful default, dismissed the petition. Concurring with the finding, the Appellate Authority also observed that the petitioner could have paid the money on the first hearing of R.C.O.P.No. 1614 of 2010, but deliberately failed to do so. The conclusions of the Courts below are correct. Hence, C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1986 of 2014 is also dismissed.

Mrs. K. Jayakarthika, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners require one year''s time to vacate and hand over possession of the premises in question.

However, this Court is inclined to grant only six months'' time to the petitioners to vacate and hand over the premises in question. Accordingly, the petitioners are granted time till 31st January, 2015 to vacate and hand over the possession of the premises in question directly to the respondent/landlord. An affidavit of undertaking shall also be filed by both the petitioners to that effect by 16.06.2014. Call the matters on 17.06.2014.