@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S. Tamilvanan, J.@mdashThis Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment and Decree, dated 29.04.2009 made in R.C.A. No. 15
of 2008 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/III Addl. District Judge, Puducherry, confirming the order and decretal order, dated
10.08.2007 made in R.C.O.P. No. 23 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif, Puducherry.
2. It is seen that the Rent Control Original Petition was filed by the Respondents herein against the Petitioner u/s 10(2)(i) of the Pondicherry
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as '' the Act'') seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default in paying the
rent. After the trial, the learned Rent Controller, Puducherry, by order, dated 10.08.2007 allowed the Rent Control Original Petition and ordered
eviction of the revision Petitioner/tenant on the ground of wilful default. Aggrieved by which, the Petitioner herein preferred Rent Control Appeal in
R.C.A. No. 15 of 2008 u/s 23(1) of the Act. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, by judgment and Decree, dated 29.04.2009, confirming the
order and decretal order, dated 10.08.2007 passed in R.C.O.P. No. 23 of 2006, dismissed the appeal, directing the Appellant/tenant to vacate
and hand over the possession of the RCOP premises to the Respondents/landlords. Aggrieved by which, this Civil Revision has been preferred by
the tenant of the premises.
3. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner herein had filed HRCOP No. 28/2005 against one Irudayanadhan u/s 8 (5) of the Pondicherry Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, seeking permission to deposit the monthly rents for the premises from January 2004 to February 2005 and
for future month rents at Rs. 1,250/-per month to the credit of said HRCOP. The Respondent therein was called absent and set exparte, hence
based on the evidence of the Petitioner/tenant and the exhibits marked by him, the said petition was allowed, permitting him to deposit the arrears
of rent and the rents for the subsequent period into Court.
4. In the revision, the Petitioner has stated that the entire arrears of rent was deposited by him on 25.04.2006, prior to the filing of the R.C.O.P.
No. 23 of 2006 and hence, the Rent Control Appellate Authority should have held that there was no cause of action for filing the R.C.O.P u/s
10(2)(i) of the Act. However, the contention of the Respondents/landlords is different and according to them, there was wilful default, committed
by the tenant, who is the revision Petitioner herein.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that non-deposit of rent every month, after obtaining an order u/s 8 (5) of the Act would
not amount to wilful default. According to the revision Petitioner, the earlier order does not fix any time limit for depositing the rent into Court, and
the Courts below should have held that the rent is to be paid on or before 10th of very month and that there was no wilful default, with the above
pleadings, the Petitioner has prayed for allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
6. The point for consideration in the revision is whether the concurrent finding of the Courts below that there was wilful default committed by the
revision Petitioner/tenant, and that the Respondents/landlords are entitled to seek eviction u/s 10(2)(i) of the Act are legally sustainable or not ?
7. In the counter filed by the revision Petitioner before the Rent Controller, it has been admitted that the rent control premises was originally leased
out by one Mrs. Franz Margueritte and that lease was renewed subsequently and the Petitioner had paid rents till December 2003 and payment of
rent from January 2004 was refused to be received by the landlords, hence, the tenant had filed HRCOP 28 of 2005 and that was allowed by
order, dated 29.11.2005. In the counter, in paragraph number 4 (i), the Petitioner has admitted that Irudayanadhan was appointed as power of
attorney and agent of the owners of the rental premises, the Respondents 1 and 2 herein and the lease agreement was entered into between the
Respondents herein and the Petitioner on 01.04.1999, whereby the monthly rent payable was agreed at Rs. 1,250/-. The said rent was paid
without any default to the power of attorney of the Respondents, Irudayanadhan. Then it was alleged that the power of attorney refused to receive
the rent tendered by the revision Petitioner on the pretext of some death and dispute in the family of the landlords. Hence, the revision
Petitioner/tenant was forced to send the rent by way of money order. As the power of attorney of the Respondents refused to receive the arrears
of rent of Rs. 22,000/-sent by way of Demand Draft with notice, the Petitioner herein filed the aforesaid HRCOP 28 of 2005, seeking permission
from the Rent Controller u/s 8 (5) of the Act, to deposit the arrears of rent from January 2004 to February 2005 to the credit of the said HRCOP.
As per order, dated 29.11.2005, the revision Petitioner was permitted to deposit the rent in to Court, accordingly, the rent was deposited for the
aforesaid period before the Rent Controller. However, subsequent rent was not paid, hence, the Respondents filed R.C.O.P. No. 23 of 2006
before the Rent Controller u/s 10(2)(i) of the Act, seeking eviction of the Petitioner / tenant, on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent from
January 2004 till the date of filing of the said R.C.O.P on 24.04.2006.
8. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner/tenant had chosen to pay the rent from January 2004 to April 2006, nearly for two years and three months,
only on 25.04.2006. It was also brought to the notice by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first Respondent that the rent was paid for
May 2007 only on 12.07.2007 and rent for April 2007, June to August 2007 were not paid in time, which amounts to default in paying the rent.
However, learned Counsel for Petitioner contended that there was no wilful default in payment of rent.
9. In support of the contention, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on the following decisions:
1. Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. Rishi Ram and Others,
2. V. Krishna Mudaliar Vs. Lakshmi Ammal,
3. Chandrasekar v. M.Lalitha 2010 (7) MLJ 248
4. Kannika Vs. Krishnasamy,
5. Dakaya @ Dakaian v. Anjani 1996 1 LW 25
6. A.M.A. Jabbar v. T.S. Abdul Barl and Ors. 1997 TLNJ 826
10 In Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. Rishi Ram and Others, , while dealing with Section 20(4)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Act (13 of 1972), the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that since on the date of first hearing of the suit, the amount of arrears
of rent having been paid, it was held as compliance of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the aforesaid Act.
11. In Dakaya @ Dakaian v. Anjani, reported in 1996 1 LW 25, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that u/s 10(2) of the Andhra Pradesh
Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, tenant paying the defaulted rent on receipt of notice from the landlord and sending a
Demand Draft before filing the suit for eviction was not a wilful default. Similarly, the tenant deposited the entire arrears of rent before the Rent
Controller, after Ejectment Application filed by the landlord, was held that the payment of rent was not wilful default u/s 10(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
12. In Kannika Vs. Krishnasamy, , this Court (P.THANGAVEL, J), has held that u/s 25 of Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
(V of 1969), power to interfere with concurrent finding, could be possible, only if the findings of the Courts below are illegal, irregular or improper,
in order to render justice, otherwise the concurrent finding could not be interfered with by this Court in the Revision.
13. In A.M.A. Jabbar v. T.S. Abdul Barl and others, reported in 1997 TLNJ 826, this Court (AR.LAKSHMANAN, J) held that as there was
payment of entire arrears of rent before the effective hearing, the same could not be a wilful default, as per Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and accordingly, the tenant was not liable to be evicted.
14. In Chandrasekar v. M. Lalitha, reported in 2010 (7) MLJ 348, this Court (G.RAJASURIA, J), held that mere default in payment of rent
would not constitute ''wilful default'' and to constitute ''wilful default'', the mental element of wilfulness is absolutely necessary.
15. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision Petitioner/tenant contended that though there was default in payment of rent by the tenant, the
same cannot be construed as wilful default, as contemplated u/s 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Though there
is concurrent finding by the Courts below, the same is liable to be set aside u/s 25 of the Act.
16. Per contra, Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first Respondent submitted that the aforesaid decisions are not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, since as per the facts narrated in the decisions referred to, the rents were paid either
immediately, after receiving the notice from the landlord or on the first hearing of the R.C.O.P. In the instant case, according to the learned Senior
Counsel, though there was a dispute between the revision Petitioner and the landlord and the Petitioner had filed HRCOP 28 of 2005 u/s 8 (5) of
the Act and got an order, after depositing the arrears of rent for few months, abruptly he stopped in paying the rent or depositing the same before
the Court below. Hence, the Respondents/landlords filed R.C.O.P. No. 23 of 2006 before the Rent Controller. Even after the filing of the
R.C.O.P, arrears of rent was not paid by the revision Petitioner/tenant, only after accumulating the arrears of rent five times, the revision Petitioner
paid the same before the Court below, which is to be construed as wilful default in payment of rent. After the dispute between the landlords and
the tenant, there could be no justification for the tenant in not paying the rent or depositing the rent into Court regularly. The learned Senior Counsel
contented that in spite of the order obtained by him, the Petitioner failed to pay the rent properly and arrears of rent was paid for few months
subsequent to the filing of the RCOP, hence, it was only a wilful default in the eye of law.
17. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the Petitioner had knowledge that he had to comply with the order passed by the learned Rent
Controller in HRCOP No. 28 of 2005 and make regular payments of monthly rent. However, the Petitioner failed to pay the rent for about five
months. Even after filing the Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P. No. 23 of 2006, the Petitioner/tenant had not chosen to pay the rent
immediately, but paid only in the month of April 2006, after filing of the RCOP.
18. Learned Senior Counsel for the first Respondent also drew the attention of this Court to the finding of the Courts below, whereby it is seen that
even after filing of the R.C.O.P, the Petitioner/tenant had paid the rent for May 2007 only on 12.07.2007 and for April 2007 and June to August
2007 rents were not paid, for September 2006 and October 2006, paid only on 09.11.2006, for January to April 2008, for four months, a total
rent of Rs. 5,000/-was paid on 09.04.2008, for April and May 2010 rents were paid only on 03.06.2010, for August to October 2010, rents
were not paid by the Petitioner/tenant. The Respondents have furnished the aforesaid details, by way of filing an additional typed set and a copy
was also served on the learned Counsel appearing for the revision Petitioner. However, there is no satisfactory explanation for the delayed
payment and for non-payment of rent for August to October 2010. It is a settled proposition of law that default committed in payment of rent by
tenant during the pendency of R.C.O.P, R.C.A or revision shall also be construed as wilful default, as contemplated under the Rent Control Act.
19. Mr.R. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior counsel drew the attention of this Court to the following decisions, in support of the case of the
Respondents/landlords and submitted that the Petitioner/tenant has committed wilful default, as contemplated u/s 10(2)(i) of the Act and hence, he
is liable to be evicted from the RCOP premises on the ground of wilful default.
1. Sarla Goel and Others Vs. Kishan Chand,
2. No. P57, The Pondicherry State Welfare Co-operative Society Limited v. S. Ramamirtham 2010 (3) CTC 752
3. M. Vedapuri Vs. O.M. Raj and Mangalakshmi,
4. J.V. Bhoopalan Vs. Rajamanickammal, S. Srinivasan and S. Kumaresan,
20. In Sarla Goel and Others Vs. Kishan Chand, , the Hon''ble Apex Court has held as follows:
31. It is not in dispute that in the present case, according to the landlord, this was a case of second default whereas the case of the tenant was that
since he has already tendered the rent to the landlord, who refused to receive the same, he had complied with the provisions of the Act. The
Respondent tenant had already taken protection under the beneficial legislations of the Rent Control Act once and therefore, he ought to have
strictly followed the procedure given in Section27 of the Act.
The aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the present case, since the revision Petitioner/tenant had already taken protection under the
beneficial legislation of the Rent Control Act, he ought to have scrupulously followed the procedure, as stipulated under the Rent Control Act in
making regular payments towards the rent without any default. The Hon''ble Apex Court has further held as follows:
36. It is not in dispute that the Respondent tenant had availed the benefit of Section14 (2) of the Act by its order dated 3-12-2001 passed by the
Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. Since we have already come to the conclusion that since the Respondent tenant has failed to deposit rent in
compliance with Section 27 of the Act because in the present case, admittedly, the Appellant landlords had not accepted any rent tendered by the
Respondent tenant within the time referred to in Section 26, it was the duty of the tenant of deposit such rent before the Rent Controller as
prescribed in Section 27 of the Act. Admittedly, this step was not taken by the Respondent which is mandatory in nature and, therefore, we must
hold that the Respondent tenant had committed a second default in payment of rent and is therefore, liable to be evicted from the suit premises.
As ruled by the Hon''ble Apex Court, it is the duty of the tenant to deposit the rent before the Rent Controller, even if the landlord refuses to
receive the rent, otherwise, the same has to be construed only as wilful default. After filing of the R.C.O.P and the order passed thereon, it is not
open to the tenant to raise a defence that the landlord refuses to receive the rent and hence, he did not pay the rent and in such circumstances, as
the said defence is not legally sustainable and the same is only a wilful default in payment of rent.
21. In No. P57, the Pondicherry Sate Welfare Co-operative Society Limited v. S. Ramamirtham, reported in 2010 (3) CTC 752, this Court
(V.DHANAPALAN, J) has held that filing petition u/s 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act by the tenant, after two
years from the date, stating that the landlord had refused to receive the rent and thereafter, issuing notice calling for details of bank for depositing
rent is nothing but committing wilful default u/s 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
22. In M. Vedapuri Vs. O.M. Raj and Mangalakshmi, , this Court (S.TAMILVANAN, J), has held that eviction of tenant sought for on the
grounds of wilful default, own use and occupation of the landlord and acts of waste and ordered on establishing the bonafide on the side of the
landlord. It was further held that when there is concurrent finding by the Courts below, unless there is any illegality or material irregularity, based on
perverse finding, this Court, while exercising Revisional Jurisdiction cannot interfere with the same. It is well settled that the finding could be
perverse only, if it is against evidence available on record or when the same is not supported by evidence.
23. In R. Murugan Vs. M.O.M. Abubucker, , this Court (R.BANUMATHI, J), has held that the tenant ought to have followed the procedure, as
contemplated u/s 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to deposit the rent into the Court immediately, on the
ground of landlord refusing the rent sent by money order. Hence, without following the procedure, as contemplated u/s 8 of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, tenant cannot raise a defence that the landlord had refused to receive the rent, hence, it was held
that the tenant was guilty of wilful default, as contemplated u/s 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
24. In J.V. Bhoopalan Vs. Rajamanickammal, S. Srinivasan and S. Kumaresan, , this Court (S.RAJESWARAN, J), has held that the tenant
should meticulously follow the procedure enumerated u/s 8 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, to deposit the rent and the
defence raised by the tenant that the landlord had refused to receive the rent cannot be a defence. Accordingly, held that the tenant is not entitled
to the benefit under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, as he failed to follow the procedure to deposit the rent into the Court.
25. It is a well settled proposition of law that concurrent finding cannot be interfered with by revisional court, unless the finding is perverse, for
which the finding must be against evidence or without the support of evidence. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the revision Petitioner
had filed an earlier Rent Control Original Petition in HRCOP No. 28 of 2005, seeking an order u/s 8 (5) of the Act to deposit the rent before the
Court below and that was ordered by the court. After depositing a lumpsum of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 22,000/-, there was no
subsequent payment made by the revision Petitioner. Hence, the Respondents/landlords filed the present Rent Control Original Petition in
R.C.O.P. No. 23 of 2006 before the Rent Controller, on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent from January 2004. Admittedly, there was
arrears of rent during the that period, however, the same was paid by the Petitioner/tenant only on 25.04.2006, when the R.C.O.P was pending.
Subsequently, as discussed earlier, there was no regular payment by the revision Petitioner/tenant. Accordingly, there was accumulated arrears of
rent for four months from January to April 2008 and a sum of Rs. 5,000/-was paid only on 09.04.2008 towards the arrears of rent. Similarly, for
August to October 2010, rent was not paid till 11.01.2011, on the date of filing the additional typed set by the Respondent herein.
26. In the instant case, admittedly, the revision Petitioner/tenant has not paid the rent, as directed by the learned Rent Controller in H.R.C.O.P.
No. 28 of 2005, u/s 8 (5) of the Act. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner deposited the rent for a period from January 2004 to March 2006,
only on 25.04.2006, after filing of R.C.O.P. He has paid the rents for May and June 2006 only on 18.07.2007, for September and October
2006, paid the rents only on 09.11.2006, for May 2007, paid the rent only on 12.07.2007. It is seen that for January to April 2008, for four
months, rent of Rs. 5,000/-was paid on 09.04.2008, for April and May 2010, paid only on 03.06.2010 and failed to pay the rent for August,
September and October 2010 till 11.01.2011. The aforesaid factum is not in dispute. Hence, it has been clearly established by the
Respondents/landlords that the revision Petitioner/tenant was not regular in paying the rent for January 2004 to April 2006, after filing of the Rent
Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P. No. 23 of 2006, he paid the rent on 25.04.2006. In the light of various decisions rendered by the Hon''ble
Apex Court and this Court, it would be construed only as wilful default. The subsequent conduct of the Petitioner, as discussed in the earlier
paragraph, would show that the revision Petitioner was not regular in making payments towards rent, but has committed wilful default, as
contemplated u/s 10(2)(i) of Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
27. Though the revision Petitioner/tenant had filed the earlier H.R.C.O.P. No. 28 of 2005, u/s 8 (5) of the Act, he stopped paying rents from
January 2004 to March 2006 and only on 25.04.2006, after filing of the R.C.O.P. No. 23 of 2006, paid the rent. As contended by the learned
Senior Counsel for the first Respondent/landlord, the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of this case, in view of the earlier H.R.C.O.P and the order passed thereon and the non-payment of rent for months together.
28. Even if the landlord refused to receive the rent, it is the duty of the tenant to deposit the rent into Court, in case it is not possible to credit the
same in the bank account of the landlord. Similarly, the non-payment of rents or arrears of accumulated rents being paid in lumpsum, during the
pendency of the R.C.O.P, R.C.A and in the Revision, shall also be construed as wilful default, as contemplated u/s 10(2)(i) of the Act.
29. In the instant case, without any justification, the Petitioner/tenant had paid accumulated arrears of rents in various dates during the pendency of
the R.C.O.P, R.C.A and in the Revision, apart from non-payment of rent for a few months, as discussed above in this Revision, which amounts to
wilful default, u/s 10(2)(i) of the Act.
30. It is a settled proposition of law that unless the concurrent finding is perverse, this Court cannot interfere with the same in the revision. Similarly,
it cannot be construed as perverse finding, when the concurrent finding of the Courts below is according to law, based on evidence available on
record. As the finding is based on evidence, as per law, this Court cannot interfere with the same, by way of revisional jurisdiction and therefore, I
am of the view that the revision is liable to be dismissed.
31. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. The Petitioner/tenant is
directed to vacate and hand over the possession of the premises to the Respondents/landlords within one month from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
