G. Manohar vs Beena

K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.—This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 05.07.2011, passed in R.C.A.No. 382 of 2009, by the learned VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, in confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.07.2009, passed in M.P.No. 403 of 2007 in R.C.O.P.No. 704 of 2005, by the learned XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, under Sections 11(3) and 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, directing the petitioner herein to deposit the difference rental amount at the rate of Rs.1,000/- p.m. from June 2004 to December 2006 and further direction to deposit the rental arrears for the period from January 2007 to till June 2009 at the rate of Rs.2,500/- p.m. to the credit of RCOP, filing which, all further proceedings in the main RCOP will be stopped.

The respondents herein are the petitioners before the learned Rent Controller and they filed eviction petition against the petitioner herein under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

It is the contention of the landlord that the petitioner herein as the tenant has failed and neglected to pay the monthly rent from June 2004 till December 2004 and the rent also for the month of January 2005. It is the specific case of the landlord that the petitioner/tenant agreed to pay the monthly rent of Rs.2,500/-.

It is also the case of the landlord that the petitioner herein had expressed his intention to purchase the property in the year 2003 and had also fixed up the sale consideration at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- for both shops and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid as advance towards the purchase of the petition premises. However, it is stated by the landlord that after entering into the sale agreement, the petitioner herein could not complete the sale consideration by paying the sum of Rs.2,90,000/- and he requested for execution of further sale agreement by granting some more time. Thus, it is the case of the landlord that another sale agreement dated 28.02.2004 was entered into between the parties by fixing the time for completion of the sale consideration on or before 30.06.2004. In spite of such sale agreement, the transaction could not be completed by the petitioner herein by paying the balance amount. It is also contended specifically by the landlord that in the sale agreement dated 28.02.2004, the tenant/petitioner herein has undertaken to pay the monthly rent till the registration is over.

The landlord by raising the above pleadings filed M.P.No. 403 of 2007 under Sections 11(3) and 11(4) of the Act, seeking for direction to the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.97,500/- being the arrears of rent calculated from June 2004 to August 2007 at the rate of Rs.2,500/- p.m., failing which, to stop all further proceedings and put the landlord in possession of the premises.

The said application was resisted by the petitioner herein by filing counter, wherein, he has contended that only xerox copies of the agreements were produced before the Court and it is not known why the landlord has not filed the original agreements. He further contended that the monthly rent for the petition premises is only Rs.1,500/- and not Rs.2,500/- as pleaded by the landlord. It is also contended by the petitioner herein that the two documents are fabricated and on the other hand, the lease agreement entered into between the parties on 12.07.2001 stipulated the monthly rent as only Rs.1,500/-.

The learned Rent Controller, while considering the quantum of rent payable, has found that subsequent to Ex.R1-Lease Agreement dated 12.07.2001, both the parties have entered upon Ex.P1-Sale Agreement dated 31.03.2003 and Ex.P2-Sale Agreement Dated 28.02.2004 and under Ex.P2-Sale Agreement, it was agreed by the parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- p.m. as rent till the sale deed is executed. The learned Rent Controller has also pointed out that the petitioner herein, though denied the execution of Ex.P1-sale agreement dated 31.03.2003, admitted that there was a sale agreement dated 28.02.2004. The Rent Controller has also found that the interim rent of Rs.2,500/- p.m. is payable by the petitioner herein for the petition premises from June 2004 onwards.

It is also specifically pointed out by the Rent Controller that the petitioner herein, in order to substantiate that the sale agreement made by the petitioner on 28.02.2004 was not Ex.P2, has however not filed any other agreement executed on the said day before the Court. The learned Appellate Authority has also confirmed the order of the Rent Controller relying upon Ex.P2-Sale Agreement and more particularly, on the specific clause contained therein stating that the rent will be paid at the rate of Rs.2,500/- p.m. till the completion of the sale deed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the xerox copy of the document, namely Ex.P2-sale agreement, ought not to have been relied upon by the Courts below while ordering the application filed under Section 11(4) of the Act as the original document is not produced. I am unable to accept the above said contention.

The petitioner herein admittedly has not denied the fact that there was a sale agreement entered into between the parties on 28.02.2004. But, at the same time, he disputes the copy of the sale agreement dated 28.02.2004 produced by the landlord before the Court to substantiate the contention that they agreed the monthly rent payable by the tenant is at Rs.2,500/-. If the petitioner disputes about the quantum referred to under Ex.P2, he ought to have produced the admitted agreement entered into between the parties on 28.02.2004. As he has not produced such document or any other document in support of his contention, the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion by placing the reliance on Ex.P2-xerox copy of the sale agreement.

In my considered view, before the Rent Control Proceedings, the said document was filed and the same was relied on by the Courts below only for the purpose of finding out as to what is the quantum of rent payable by the tenant. By considering the materials placed, the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion, with which, I do not find any reason to interfere.

Accordingly, I find no merits in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.