AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Jyothimani, J.—The tenant is the revision petitioner. The landlords/ respondents filed the petition for eviction on the ground of willful
default in payment of rent from August 1997.
According to the respondents/landlords, monthly rent is Rs. 400/- and the demised portion is a residential portion. The tenant/revision petitioner
has filed counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the monthly rent is Rs. 150/- from 01.04.1995 and at the time of tenancy he has paid a sum of
Rs. 2,000/- towards the rental advance. It was also the case of the tenant/revision petitioner that he entered an agreement with one R.
Shanmugham who, according to him, has let out the property under which it was agreed by the tenant/revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.
75,000/- to the said R. Shanmugham and in lieu of the same to enjoy the property. Pursuant to the said agreement dated 01.02.1996, the revision
petitioner/tenant has paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to the said R. Shanmugham. Therefore, according to him there was no landlords-tenant
relationship. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that if the landlords re-payed the amount of Rs. 75,000/-, the revision petitioner/tenant is willing
to surrender possession.
The Rent Controller, by elaborate discussion, about the payment of Rs. 75,000/- stated to have been made to the said R. Shanmugham, has
come to a conclusion that there was absolutely no evidence to show that the revision petitioner/tenant has paid Rs. 75,000/- to the said R.
Shanmugham being the father of the landlords and held that the revision petitioner/tenant was not holding the property as an agreement holder and
found on fact that there was landlords and tenant relationship. Further the Rent Controller has found from the evidence of the tenant/revision
petitioner himself, who has categorically admitted that from 31.07.1997 he has not paid any rent. It is also found from the deposition of the revision
petitioner/tenant that after the death of R. Shanmugham, the predecessor of the landlords, no rent has been paid and it is also specifically admitted
by the revision petitioner/tenant that he has not agreed with R. Shanmugham to purchase the property. It was on the said specific finding, the Rent
Controller has found that the revision petitioner/tenant has committed willful default and ordered eviction. On appeal, the Appellant Authority has
also agreed with the finding of fact by the learned Rent Controller and held that there was no evidence for payment of Rs. 75,000/- by the revision
petitioner/tenant and the revision petitioner/tenant has not proved the allegations of mortgage transactions. On the other hand, the Appellant
Authority has found that the landlords/respondents have established the willful default committed by the tenant/revision petitioner on his own
admission and ordered eviction.
As against the order of Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, the revision petitioner/tenant has filed the present revision petition.
The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant would vehemently contend that there was dispute regarding quantum of rent. It
is the case of the landlords/respondents that the monthly rent is Rs. 400/- and the tenant has consistently raised the issue that the monthly rent is Rs.
150/- and therefore, when there is dispute regarding quantum of amount, it is not proper to arrive at a conclusion that there is any willful default in
payment of rent.
On the other hand, as correctly found by the learned Rent Controller, the revision petitioner/tenant has specifically admitted in his deposition that
he has not paid rent from 31.07.1997. Even assuming that, according to the revision petitioner/tenant, the rent is Rs. 150/- per month, it is not his
case that he has paid the admitted amount till date. On the other hand, there is specific and categoric admission by RW1 that he has not paid rent
after 31.07.1997. On the face of the conclusion, the finding of the fact by both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that there was no
mortgage transactions and that the revision petitioner/tenant was not holding the property on interest for the amount offered to the father of the
landlords, it is a clear case of willful default on the part of the revision petitioner/tenant. In view of the same, there is absolutely no difficult to come
to the conclusion that the revision petitioner/tenant has committed willful default in payment of rent from 31.07.1997.
There is one another issue to be decided in this case. Even assuming that the contention of the revision petitioner/tenant that he has entered a
loan transaction with one R. Shanmugham and by virtue of payment of Rs. 75,000/- , he was holding the property in lieu of the interest for the said
amount, said to have been paid to the said R. Shanmugham, apart from the fact that there was no evidence to that effect, it is admitted that the
revision petitioner/tenant has not approached any Court either for recovery of the amount or for specific performance or in any other manner
known to law. A bald allegation made by the revision petitioner/tenant in the counter affidavit as if he has got interest over the property by offering
loan cannot be just accepted. There is no illegality or irregularity in the finding of both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. Therefore,
the revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant seeks time to vacate the portion on behalf of the revision petitioner/tenant. While
dismissing the civil revision petition, it is ordered as follows: The revision petitioner/tenant is given time to vacate and hand over the vacant
possession of the property to the respondents/landlords on or before 31.03.2008 subject to the following conditions:
i) that the revision petitioner/tenant shall pay entire rental arrears due from 31.07.1997, for the demised portion at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month
from 01.08.1997, till date, within a period of two months from today.
ii) that the revision petitioner/tenant has to file an affidavit before this Court stating that he shall not make any encumbrance or transfer the demised
portion of the property in favour of the third party and shall hand over the same to the respondents/landlords on or before 31.03.2008 within a
period of 10 days from today; and
iii) filing compliance of either of the condition will enable the landlords to proceed with execution forthwith.