Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PEER MOHAMMED versus ABDUL RAHUMAN

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Peer Mohammed v. Abdul Rahuman - CRP.NPD.1917 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 2248 (10 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED:10.07.2007

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM

CRP.NPD.No.1917 of 2007

and

M.P.No.1 of 2007

1.Mr.Peer Mohammed

2.Mrs.Rasheeda Khanam .. Petitioner

Vs.

1.Mr.Abdul Rahuman

2.Tmt. Ayisha .. Respondents

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 16.02.2007 passed by Appellate Authority, VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai made in R.C.A.No.1231 of 2005 confirming the order in R.C.O.P.No.1359 of 2004 dated 26.09.2005 passed by the Rent Controller, XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. For Petitioner:Mr.P.Sivamani For Respondents:Mr.S.A.Samiullah O R D E R



Challenge is made to the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority made in RCA.No.1231 of 2005 whereby the order of the Rent Controller in RCOP.No.1359 of 2004 was affirmed. Aggrieved over the same, this Civil Revision Petition has been brought forth by the tenants.

2.The respondents/landlords made a petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default under Section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act stating that the they are the absolute owners of the property bearing Door No.33/17, 1st Floor Ponnappa Street, Purasawalkkam,Chennai-84, that the respondents are the tenants under them in respect of the petition premises , that the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.3,000/-, that the tenants were in arrears of rents from January 2004 to March 2004 and despite many demands, the rents were not paid. Under such circumstances, there arose a necessity for filing the petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default.

3. The application was resisted by the revision petitioners/tenants stating that the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.1,500/- and for the month of January, 2004, the rent has been paid and the monthly rent for the months of February, 2004 and March,2004 were sent by way of Demand Draft on 15.4.2004. However, the petitioners have returned the same to the respondents. Thereafter, notice was sent to the counsel for the landlords calling upon the petitioners to express their willingness to receive the rent and thus there was no default much less wilful default committed on the part of them. Under such circumstances, the petition for eviction should have been dismissed.

4. On enquiry, the Rent Controller ordered eviction by allowing the petition. Aggrieved over the same, the tenants took it on appeal and the appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition at the instance of the tenants before this Court.

5. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the revision petitioners/tenants, learned counsel would submit that the parties were closely related to each other and the respondents have paid the sum of Rs.15,000/- towards rental advance and the respondents did not give receipt for the same . The monthly rent was fixed at the rate of Rs.1,500/- only as per the English Calender month and at no point of time, receipt was issued by the landlords to the tenants and for the month of January, 2004, rent was paid and it was also received by the landlord at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and for the months of February, 2004 and March,2004, the rents were tendered by way of Demand draft along with the lawyer's notice and the same was refused by the landlord. Under such circumstances, an application has been brought forth with all false allegations. Under such circumstances, the orders of both the authorities below have got to be set aside.

6. Contrary to the above, learned counsel for the respondents/landlords would submit that it is true that receipts were not given for rents received. But the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.3,000/- and the revision petitioners/tenants are making the payment of rents at the rate of Rs.3,000/- all along. But when the tenant tendered the payment of Rs.3,000/- for two months, the landlords refused to receive the same. Thereafter, no rental payments were made. At the time of filing of RCOP., there was rental arrears from January, 2004 to July 2004 and thus there was seven months arrears and no explanation was offered by the revision petitioners/tenants and apart from that both the authorities have found that the revision petitioners/tenants have committed wilful default and passed an order of eviction which has got to be sustained.

7. After careful consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that the orders of the authorities below have got to be sustained. It is not in controversy that the revision petitioners are tenants under the landlords in respect of the premises in question. In so far as the payment of Rs.15,000/- towards advance, no material is available before the Courts below. According to the tenants/revision petitioners, the monthly rent was fixed Rs.,500/-. According to the landlord it was fixed at Rs.3,000/- p.m. But, it is an admitted position that the landlords have not give any receipt for the rentals they received. Thus, there was a controversy as to the quantum of monthly rent between the parties. Even without going into the question as to the actual payment, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where eviction has to be ordered . Even assuming, the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.1,500/- as put forward by the revision petitioners/tenants, they have not made payment of arrears from January, 2004 to July 2004 till the time when the petition for eviction was made. According to them, for the months of February,2004 and March, 2004 rents were tendered and the same was refused and hence they sent along with notice to the counsel, but the same was also returned. Under such circumstances, if the landlords refused to receive the rent, it is open to them to follow the procedure adopted under the Act. But , they have not done so. On the contrary, they have omitted to pay the rents and at the time when the RCOP petition was filed, even according to the revision petitioners/tenants, the rent was not paid from the months of February, 2004 to July 2004 i.e. six months. Under such circumstance, one would expect proper explanation for not making the payment of rents by way of depositing before the Court. Hence, without any hesitation it has to be termed as wilful default committed by the tenants and it would be suffice to sustain the orders of eviction made by the authorities below. Accordingly, the orders are sustained. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners/tenants are occupying the premises for residential purpose, they should be given sufficient time to find out a suitable accommodation and for that purpose, six months time is granted from today. The learned counsel for the petitioners are directed to file an affidavit of undertaking to that effect within a period of two weeks herefrom.

8. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs. VJY

To

The Registrar,Small Causes Court,

Chennai.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.