High CourtsSingle Bench(2002) 07 MAD CK 0090

R. Govindhammal, R. Hariharanathan, R. Umapathy, R. Ravindharan and R. Kesavan vs A. Nirmala

Madras High Court · Decided on 31 July 2002 · Citation: (2002) 3 MLJ 412

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Govindarajan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1021 of 2002 and C.M.P. No. 10889 of 2002

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 373 words

K. Govindarajan, J.—The tenants having suffered an order of eviction before the Authorities below have filed the above Civil Revision

Petition.

2.

The respondent/landlady filed a petition in R.C.O.P. No.60 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Controller (II Additional District Munsif), Trichy u/s

10(2)(i) of Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the ground that the petitioners/tenants have not paid the rent from the month of

December, 1996 onwards. Though the tenants have come forward with the plea in the counter that they paid the rent till August, 1999 and

thereafter, the Rent Controller, on the basis of evidence found that the tenants paid rent only till August, 1999 and thereafter, the rent was not paid.

On appeal by the tenants, the learned the Appellate authority confirmed the same. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition.

3.

The above facts are not in dispute. The only reason stated by the tenants is that though the said amount was sent, it was not received. But,

admittedly, the tenants have not filed any petition u/s 8 to deposit the said amount. The fact remains that the tenants have not paid rent for 7 months

from September, 1999 to March, 2000. As stated already, the only reason stated is that after the filing of the suit by the tenants, the landlady

refused to receive the rent. The Authorities below found that the tenants have not taken any step to deposit the same in the Court to show their

bona fide intention to pay the rent and so, there is wilful default.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/tenants has submitted that the amount was already deposited on the first hearing itself. This

Court in number of decisions has held that mere deposit of arrears of rent on receipt of summons or on the date fixed in the summons for

appearance of the tenant would not rectify the disqualification suffered by the tenant already. Both the Authorities below concurrently found that

the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent. In view of the said finding of facts by the Authorities below, I do not incline to interfere with

the same. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.10889 of 2002 is also dismissed.