IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14/11/2007
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN
C.R.P. (NPD) No.3085 & 3086 of 2007
AND
M.P. No.1 and 1 of 2007
M. Venkatachalam ..Petitioner in CRP No. 3085
1. Dhanam
2. Ganesh
3. Kumar ..Petitioners in CRP No. 3086
Versus
N. Palanisamy Thevar ..Respondent in both the CRPs
CRP No. 3085 of 2007: Revision under Section 25 of the
Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act against the Order and Decree
dated 30.10.2006 made in R.C.A. No. 3 of 2006 on the file of
Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Sub Court, Tirupur,
Coimbatore District, confirming the Order and Decree dated
20.06.2005 made in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 2001 on the file of
Rent Controller cum District Munsif Court, Tirupur,
Coimbatore District.
CRP No. 3086 of 2007: Revision under Section 25 of the
Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, amended by Act 23 of 1973
against the Order and Decree dated 30.10.2006 made in R.C.A.
No. 6 of 2006 on the file of Rent Control Appellate
Authority cum Sub Court, Tirupur, Coimbatore District,
confirming the Order and Decree dated 20.06.2005 made in
R.C.O.P. No. 9 of 2001 on the file of Rent Controller cum
District Munsif Court, Tirupur, Coimbatore District.
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Subramaniam, Sr. Counsel for Mr. R. Saseetharan
COMMON ORDER
These revision petitions are listed today for admission
and I heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners.
2. In view of the fact that the respondent in both
the revision petitions are same person and the issues
involved are also the same, both the revision petitions are
disposed of by this common order.
3. The revision petitioners are the tenants/
respondents in RCOP Nos. 8 and 9 of 2001 on the file of the
Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Tirupur, Coimbatore
District, which are filed by the landlord/respondent herein
on the ground of denial of title and wilful default under
Sections 10 (1) and 10 (2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called as
the Act respectively. The Rent Controller allowed the said
RCOP Nos. 8 and 9 of 2001 by order dated 20.06.2005.
Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners herein have
filed R.C.A. Nos. 3 and 6 of 2006 respectively before the
Appellate Authority, which were also dismissed on
30.10.2006, hence, the present CRP Nos. 3085 and 3086 of
2007 respectively were filed under Section 25 of the Act.
4. The respondent herein has purchased the petition
mentioned properties from one T.S. Dhandapani Chettiar under
a registered sale deed dated 22.06.1981. The petitioners
herein were tenants for a monthly rent of Rs.20/- and Rs.25/-
respectively under the respondent’s vendor. After
purchasing the property, the respondent herein informed the
petitioners that he purchased the premises and repeatedly
called upon them to pay the rent to him, but the petitioners
have not paid or tendered the rent.
5. The petitioners herein have filed O.S. No. 172 of
1981 before the Sub Court, Tirupur for specific performance
on the ground that they have entered into an oral agreement
with vendor of the petitioner namely Dhandapani Chettiar.
The said suit was decreed as prayed for on 30.09.1982.
Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the respondent
herein and his vendor have filed an appeal in A.S. No. 824
of 1982 before this Court, which was allowed on 29.09.2000.
The petitioners have contended first time before this Court
in these revision petitions that they have filed an appeal
against the said judgment and decree dated 29.09.2000 in
A.S. No. 824 of 1982 before this Court with a delay of 10
days in CMP No. 12014 of 2002 in LPA SR No. 10993 of 2000
and in the said petition, notice was ordered by this Court
as such the same is still pending. The respondent contended
that A.S. No. 824 of 1982 was allowed by this Court as early
as 29.09.2000 thereby the petitioners were declared as
tenants under the respondent and even after that decree and
judgment, they have deliberately failed to pay the rent and
also without bonafide denied the title of respondent. The
respondent herein has issued notices dated 26.03.2001 and
03.02.2001 respectively calling upon the petitioners to pay
the rental arrears, which was received by the petitioner in
CRP No. 3085 of 2006 and the petitioners in CRP No. 3086 of
2007 refused to receive the same, however, they have not
paid any rent.
6. Before the Rent Controller, the respondent herein
has marked certified copy of the Judgment and Decree made in
A.S. No. 824 of 1982, notices dated 26.03.2001 and
03.02.2001 issued by the respondent to the petitioners,
Acknowledgment Card, returned notices and examined himself
as PW1 in both the cases. The Petitioner in CRP No. 3085 of
2007 has marked Ex.R1, certified copy of the Judgment made
in O.S. No. 172 of 1981 and examined himself as RW1. The
third petitioner in CRP No. 3086 has examined himself as RW1
and marked Ex. R1, certified copy of the judgment made in
O.S.No. 172 of 1981.
7. The learned Rent Controller framed two issues
namely (i) whether the relationship of landlord and tenant
exists between the parties and (ii) whether the petitioners
denied the title of the respondent without any bonafide.
After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the
Rent Controller allowed both the RCOP Nos. 8 and 9 of 2001
on 20.06.2005 on the ground that originally the petitioners
were tenants under the respondent’s vendor and after the
property was purchased by the respondent they become tenants
under him; that A.S. No. 824 of 1982 filed by the respondent
herein was allowed by this Court on 29.09.2000, thus, the
respondent has proved the relationship of landlord and
tenant; that after A.S.No. 824 of 1982 was allowed in favour
of the respondent, he issued notices calling upon the
petitioners to pay rental arrears within 30 days but the
petitioners have not paid the rent and also denied the title
of the respondent without bonafide reasons with the
intention not to pay the rent.
8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated
20.06.2005 passed in RCOP Nos. 8 and 9 of 2001, the
petitioners herein have filed R.C.A. Nos. 3 and 6 of 2006
respectively. In the said RCA Nos. 3 and 6 of 2006, the
first appellate Court, in addition to the issues (i) whether
the petitioners herein, without any bonafide reasons denied
the title of the respondent (ii) whether the petitioners
committed wilful default in payment of rent, framed one more
issue that whether the petition mentioned premises is
required for the respondent for his own occupation or
occupation of his family. The first appellate Court found
that the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 172 of 1981
was set aside by this Court in A.S. No. 824 of 1982 on
29.09.2000, thereafter, the respondent issued notices dated
03.02.2001 and 26.03.2001 respectively calling upon the
petitioners to pay the arrears of rent to him; that the
petitioners have not produced any evidence to show that they
have preferred a Letters Patent Appeal against the Judgment
dated 29.09.2000 made in A.S.No. 824 of 1982 and that the
respondent herein has proved that he is the landlord, whose
title was denied by the petitioners without any bonafide
reasons and that the petitioners not paid rent even after
receipt of the advocate notices issued by the respondent,
which amounts to wilful default. In so far as the third
issue is concerned, it held that the respondent herein
neither canvassed the said issue nor let in evidence, hence,
it is unnecessary for it to give any finding, thus the first
appellate Court decided the said two issues against the
petitioners herein and dismissed the appeals.
9. Mr. Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners advanced the below mentioned arguments;-
The petitioners in both the revision petitions and the
vendor of the respondent have entered into an oral agreement
for sale of the petition mentioned premises, but he without
honouring the said oral agreement sold the petition
mentioned premises to the respondent herein; that the
petitioners have questioned the said sale transaction by
filing a suit in O.S. No. 172 of 1981 and sought the relief
of specific performance, which was decreed on 03.09.1982;
that as against the said decree and judgment dated
03.09.1982, the respondent and others have filed A.S. No.
824 of 1982, which was dismissed by this Court, hence, the
petitioners have filed CMP No. 12014 of 2002 in LPA SR No.
10993 of 2000; that in the said CMP No. 12014 of 2002,
notice was ordered by this Court and the said case is still
pending before this Court. In view of the said reasons, the
petitioners have not paid rent and therefore, there is no
default, much less wilful default; that in view of the sale
agreement, the petitioners are no longer tenants and on that
ground also, the non-payment of rent is not wilful.
10. This Court considered the argument of the learned
senior counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have
alleged that they have entered into an oral agreement of
sale with the respondent’s vendor, which was not honoured by
him, with the result, they have filed O.S. No. 172 of 1981
for specific performance against the respondent, his vendor
and others, which was decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved by
the said decree and judgment in O.S. No. 172 of 1981, the
respondent herein has filed A.S.No. 824 of 1982 before this
Court against his vendor and the petitioners herein and
others. This Court framed necessary issues namely whether
the petitioners herein have proved the factum of agreement
of sale and whether the sale in favour of the respondent
herein is valid sale or bogus sale and answered the said
issues against the petitioners herein thereby set aside the
decree and judgment passed in O.S. No. 172 of 1981 by the
trial court. Thereafter, the respondent has issued notices
calling upon the petitioners to pay the rental arrears, but
the petitioner in CRP No. 3085 of 2007 received the notice,
but not given any reply and the petitioners in CRP No. 3086
of 2007 even refused to receive the said notices. The
courts below considering the decree and judgment passed by
this Court in A.S. No. 824 of 1982 and the notices of demand
issued by the respondent, came to the conclusion that the
petitioners have committed wilful default in payment of
rent. The obligation to pay rent is not merely contractual
but is also statutory. It is for the landlord to prove the
case of wilful default and when the landlord has proved his
case of wilful default, the burden lies on the tenant to
disprove the same. In this case the landlord/respondent
herein proved wilful default, but the tenant/petitioners
herein not discharged their burden, hence, this Court is of
the considered view that the petitioners are guilty of
wilful default.
11. It is pointed out by the first appellate court
that though the petitioners herein have claimed that they
have filed Letters Patent Appeal, not placed any documents
or produced any order staying the operation of the decree
and judgment dated 29.09.2000 passed in A.S. No. 824 of
1982, even after lapse of six years. It is to be remembered
that RCA Nos. 3 and 6 of 2006 were disposed of by the first
appellate court on 30.10.2006 and these revision petitions
were filed on 21.09.2007 and for the first time, the
petitioners, only at the time of admission of these revision
petitions claim that LPA SR No. 10993 of 2000 was filed with
a delay of 10 days for which CMP No. 12014 of 2002 was filed
seeking condonation of the said delay, in which notice was
ordered by this Court. It is not explained why the said LPA
SR No. 10993 of 2000 filed in the year 2000 was not moved
immediately nor furnished details when the notice was
ordered by this Court in CMP No. 12014 of 2002 and what is
the present stage.
12. A court of equity never aid to stale demands and
where the party who slept upon his right and acquiesced for
a great length of time, he is then said to be barred by his
laches. A person is guilty of laches when he is negligent
in the performance of a legal duty, or when he makes delay
in asserting a right in claiming a privilege and in applying
for redress.
13. It is apparent on the face of record that the
petitioner, in order to avoid payment of rent to the
respondent have set up a false plea that the respondent has
no valid title and persistently continued the said plea even
after the first appeal was dismissed by this Court. Thus,
they have deliberately not paid any rent nor deposited for
26 years i.e., from 1981 when the property was purchased by
the respondent in the year 1981. When the suit for specific
performance filed by the petitioners was dismissed by this
Court, their failure to obtain order against it, they cannot
raise the question again that the landlord has no valid
title since the verdict so far as the petitioners are
concerned has become final. Hence, the finding of the
courts below that the denial of title is not bonafide is
perfectly valid. On that ground also, eviction was rightly
ordered by the courts below. Moreover, the High Court
cannot interfere in exercise of revisionary power under
Section 25 of the Act when concurrent findings of the courts
below are based on valid evidence and correct application of
law.
14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the view that there is no merits in the revision petitions,
the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed and
accordingly they are dismissed in limine. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
rsh
To
1. The Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Sub Court
Tirupur
Coimbatore District.
2. The Rent Controller cum District Munsif
District Munsif Court
Tirupur
Coimbatore District.