IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.12.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN C.R.P.(PD) No.3830 of 2007 and M.P.No.2 of 2007 1. M/s.New Aachi Chettinad Restaurant, Partnership firm rep. by its Partner Mr.K.Selvaraj 2. K.Selvaraj 3. K.Sathyasekar ... Petitioners Vs M/s.Super Engineering Co., partnership firm rep. By its Partner Mr.Y.J.Bakri ... Respondent This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority) in M.P.No.597 of 2007 in R.C.A.No.539 of 2007 against R.C.O.P.No.2066 of 2006. For Petitioners : Mr.Vivekanandan For Respondent : Mr.R.Thiyagarajan ***** O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 16.11.2007 passed in M.P.No.597 of 2007 in R.C.A.No.539 of 2007 against R.C.O.P.No.2066 of 2006 on the file of the VIII Court of Small Causes at Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority).
2. The tenants in R.C.O.P.No.2066 of 2006 are the revision petitioners before this court. The respondent herein as landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.2066 of 2006 under Sec.10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Building (lease and Rent Control) Act 1960. The case of the respondent/landlord in R.C.O.P.No.2066 of 2006 is that, the first revision petitioner herein acting through revision petitioners 2 and 3 became a tenant in respect of a non-residential premises at No.148 and 149, Montieth Road, Egmore, Chennai 8. The respondent herein and the first revision petitioner entered into a Lease agreement on 12.03.2003 whereby the first revision petitioner agreed to take on lease the aforesaid premises on a monthly rent of Rs.70,000/-. The first revision petitioner took the premises on lease for the purpose of running a restaurant/Hotel. The first revision petitioner agreed to pay the rent on or before the 7th day of every month, but, wilfully defaulted in payment of the rent from April 2004 to October 2006. According to the respondent herein, at the time of filing the R.C.O.P., the first revision petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.21,70,000/- as rental arrears for the period commencing from April 2004 to October 2006.
3. Hence, the respondent herein sought for the eviction of the revision petitioners by filing R.C.O.P.No.2066 of 2006. Pending R.C.O.P.No.2066 of 2006, the respondent herein filed M.P.No.39 of 2007 under Sec.11(3 and 4) of the Tamil Nadu Building (lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 to direct the revision petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.22,40,000/- being the arrears of rent from April 2004 to December 2006, failing which, to stop all further proceedings and to make an order directing the revision petitioners to put the respondent/landlord in possession of the petition premises.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of M.P.No.39 of 2007, it is stated by the respondent herein that the first revision petitioner agreed to take the premises on a monthly rent of Rs.70,000/- and the revision petitioners have not tendered the rent from April 2004 to October 2006, necessitating the respondents to file the R.C.O.P.No.2066 of 2006. After entering appearance in the R.C.O.P., the revision petitioners took time for filing counter, but, did not tender the arrears of rent. According to the respondent herein, the revision petitioners are liable to pay a sum of Rs.22,40,000/- being the rental arrears. This petition was resisted by the revision petitioners by filing a counter affidavit wherein they admitted the rental agreement dated 12.03.2003. They also admitted that the monthly rent is Rs.70,000/- and they also deposited a rental advance of Rs.7,00,000/-. According to the revision petitioners, they requested the respondent herein to reduce the rent as they were forced to deposit the rental advance of Rs.7,00,000/- in their anxiety to develop the restaurant business. They also spent a sum of Rs.34,00,000/- for improving the demised premises and therefore, they filed R.C.O.P.No.1976 of 2004, for fixing the fair rent and by order dated 22.7.2006, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs.31,093/-. The revision petitioners had been paying the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller till date and the respondent herein has come up with the false claim of rental arrears. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the M.P.No.39 of 2007.
5. The Rent Controller by order dated 14.08.2007 allowed the petition and directed the revision petitioners to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.15,63,876/- to the respondent herein on or before 17.9.2007. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the revision petitioners filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.539 of 2007. They also filed M.P.No.597 of 2007 in R.C.A.No.539 of 2007 to stay all further proceedings in M.P.No.39 of 2007 in R.C.O.P.No.2066 of 2006. This stay petition was resisted by the respondent herein by filing a counter affidavit. The Rent Control Appellate Authority by order dated 16.11.2007 granted interim stay till 31.12.2007 subject to the condition that the revision petitioners should deposit a sum of Rs.15,63,876/- being the rental arrears for the month of April 2004 to June 2007 on or before 30.11.2007. Challenging the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, in M.P.No.597 of 2007, the appellants/tenants filed the above revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. This court granted interim stay for a period of two weeks on condition that the revision petitioners shall deposit the balance amount of Rs.8,63,876/- within one week from the date of the order by order dated 7.12.2007 in M.P.No.2 of 2007. As the revision petitioners could not comply with the conditional order within the time stipulated, the revision petitioners filed M.P.No.1 of 2008 to extend the time for complying with the conditional order. This court, on 11.01.2008, found that a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was tendered on that day and granted time till 23.01.2008, to deposit the balance amount of Rs.4,63,876/-. On 23.01.2008, this court made the interim stay already granted in M.P.No.2 of 2007 absolute, as the revision petitioners complied with the order of this court dated 7.12.2007.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also gone through the documents filed in support of their submissions.
8. The order of the Rent Controller in M.P.No.39 of 2007 in R.C.O.P.No.2066 of 2006 will show that the Rent Controller adverted to the fact that the rent of Rs.70,000/- per month was admitted by the revision petitioners. The Rent Controller also took notice of the fact that, an ex-parte order was passed in R.C.O.P.No.1976 of 2004 filed by the revision petitioners, fixing the fair rent of Rs.31,093/- per month. The Rent Controller also considered the subsequent event namely setting aside of the ex-parte order passed in R.C.O.P.No.1976 of 2004. Therefore, the Rent Controller disregarded the earlier order passed on 22.7.2005 and calculated the arrears of rent at the contractual rate of Rs.70,000/- from April 2004 to June 2007 and accordingly arrived at a sum of Rs.27,30,000/-. It was admitted by the respondent herein that a sum of Rs.6,06,124/- was already paid by the revision petitioners and therefore, the balance amount payable was Rs.21,23,876/-. The Rent Controller has rightly deducted a sum of Rs.5,60,000/- being the excess advance amount paid by the revision petitioners and arrived at the balance at Rs.15,63,876/-. This amount was directed to be paid on or before 17.9.2007. When this was challenged in R.C.A.No.539 of 2007, the revision petitioners herein filed a stay petition in M.P.No.597 of 2007. The Rent Control Appellate Authority while considering M.P.No.597 of 2007 for stay found that the order of the Rent Controller is reasonable and therefore, directed the revision petitioners to deposit the amount within the time stipulated. When this order was challenged before this court, on the direction of this court, the entire arrears as directed by both the authorities below have been paid by the revision petitioners.
9. In the light of the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that no ground has been made out to interfere with the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dated 16.11.2007, as the same has been correctly passed. Hence, I do not find any merits in the above revision petition and the same is dismissed. No cost. All the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
10. Considering the fact that the R.C.A. is of the year 2007, that too, against the order passed in a miscellaneous petition, I direct the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai) to dispose of the appeal filed in R.C.A.No.539 of 2007 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
vaan
To
1. The VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
(Rent Control Appellate Authority).
2. The XI Judge, Court of Small Causes,
(Rent Controller)
Chennai
