The obligation to pay rent is not merely contractual but is also statutory. It is for the landlord to prove the case of wilful default and when the landlord has proved his case of wilful default, the burden lies on the tenant to disprove the same. In this case the landlord/respondent herein proved wilful default, but the tenant/petitioners herein not discharged their burden, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are guilty of wilful default.1
A court of equity never aid to stale demands and where the party who slept upon his right and acquiesced for a great length of time, he is then said to be barred by his laches. A person is guilty of laches when he is negligent in the performance of a legal duty, or when he makes delay in asserting a right in claiming a privilege and in applying for redress.1
It is apparent on the face of record that the petitioner, in order to avoid payment of rent to the respondent have set up a false plea that the respondent has no valid title and persistently continued the said plea even after the first appeal was dismissed by this Court. Thus, they have deliberately not paid any rent nor deposited for 26 years i.e., from 1981 when the property was purchased by the respondent in the year 1981. When the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioners was dismissed by this Court, their failure to obtain order against it, they cannot raise the question again that the landlord has no valid title since the verdict so far as the petitioners are concerned has become final. Hence, the finding of the courts below that the denial of title is not bonafide is perfectly valid. On that ground also, eviction was rightly ordered by the courts below.
A court of equity never aid to stale demands and where the party who slept upon his right and acquiesced for a great length of time, he is then said to be barred by his laches. A person is guilty of laches when he is negligent in the performance of a legal duty, or when he makes delay in asserting a right in claiming a privilege and in applying for redress.1
It is apparent on the face of record that the petitioner, in order to avoid payment of rent to the respondent have set up a false plea that the respondent has no valid title and persistently continued the said plea even after the first appeal was dismissed by this Court. Thus, they have deliberately not paid any rent nor deposited for 26 years i.e., from 1981 when the property was purchased by the respondent in the year 1981. When the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioners was dismissed by this Court, their failure to obtain order against it, they cannot raise the question again that the landlord has no valid title since the verdict so far as the petitioners are concerned has become final. Hence, the finding of the courts below that the denial of title is not bonafide is perfectly valid. On that ground also, eviction was rightly ordered by the courts below.
Eviction petition on the grounds of willful default and denial of title – Eviction petition allowed by Rent Controller and order confirmed by Appellate Authority – Revisions by tenant – Purchaser of property, is the landlord – Tenant pleaded he had entered into an agreement of sale with original landlord and had obtained a decree for specific performance – Decree for specific performance set aside in appeal and no document produced to show that any appeal against the same was pending – Tenant is obliged to pay the rent – Such obligation is not merely contractual but also statutory – Tenant has deliberately failed to pay the rent – He has set up a false plea that the landlord has no title – No perversity in the concurrent findings – Revisions dismissed.
Madras High Court
M. Venkatachalam vs N. Palanisamy Thevar on 14 November, 2007
N. Palanisamy Thevar ..Respondent in both the CRPs CRP No. 3085 of 2007: Revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act against the Order and Decree dated 30.10.2006 made in R.C.A. No. 3 of 2006 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Sub Court, Tirupur, Coimbatore District, confirming the Order and Decree dated 20.06.2005 made in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 2001 on the file of Rent Controller cum District Munsif Court, Tirupur, Coimbatore District.
CRP No. 3086 of 2007: Revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, amended by Act 23 of 1973 against the Order and Decree dated 30.10.2006 made in R.C.A. No. 6 of 2006 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Sub Court, Tirupur, Coimbatore District, confirming the Order and Decree dated 20.06.2005 made in R.C.O.P. No. 9 of 2001 on the file of Rent Controller cum District Munsif Court, Tirupur, Coimbatore District. For Petitioner : Mr. R.Subramaniam, Sr. Counsel for Mr. R. Saseetharan COMMON ORDER
These revision petitions are listed today for admission and I heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners.
2. In view of the fact that the respondent in both the revision petitions are same person and the issues involved are also the same, both the revision petitions are disposed of by this common order.
3. The revision petitioners are the tenants/ respondents in RCOP Nos. 8 and 9 of 2001 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Tirupur, Coimbatore District, which are filed by the landlord/respondent herein on the ground of denial of title and wilful default under Sections 10 (1) and 10 (2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called as the Act respectively. The Rent Controller allowed the said RCOP Nos. 8 and 9 of 2001 by order dated 20.06.2005. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners herein have filed R.C.A. Nos. 3 and 6 of 2006 respectively before the Appellate Authority, which were also dismissed on 30.10.2006, hence, the present CRP Nos. 3085 and 3086 of 2007 respectively were filed under Section 25 of the Act.
4. The respondent herein has purchased the petition mentioned properties from one T.S. Dhandapani Chettiar under a registered sale deed dated 22.06.1981. The petitioners herein were tenants for a monthly rent of Rs.20/- and Rs.25/- respectively under the respondent's vendor. After purchasing the property, the respondent herein informed the petitioners that he purchased the premises and repeatedly called upon them to pay the rent to him, but the petitioners have not paid or tendered the rent.
5. The petitioners herein have filed O.S. No. 172 of 1981 before the Sub Court, Tirupur for specific performance on the ground that they have entered into an oral agreement with vendor of the petitioner namely Dhandapani Chettiar. The said suit was decreed as prayed for on 30.09.1982. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the respondent herein and his vendor have filed an appeal in A.S. No. 824 of 1982 before this Court, which was allowed on 29.09.2000. The petitioners have contended first time before this Court in these revision petitions that they have filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 29.09.2000 in A.S. No. 824 of 1982 before this Court with a delay of 10 days in CMP No. 12014 of 2002 in LPA SR No. 10993 of 2000 and in the said petition, notice was ordered by this Court as such the same is still pending. The respondent contended that A.S. No. 824 of 1982 was allowed by this Court as early as 29.09.2000 thereby the petitioners were declared as tenants under the respondent and even after that decree and judgment, they have deliberately failed to pay the rent and also without bonafide denied the title of respondent. The respondent herein has issued notices dated 26.03.2001 and 03.02.2001 respectively calling upon the petitioners to pay the rental arrears, which was received by the petitioner in CRP No. 3085 of 2006 and the petitioners in CRP No. 3086 of 2007 refused to receive the same, however, they have not paid any rent.
6. Before the Rent Controller, the respondent herein has marked certified copy of the Judgment and Decree made in A.S. No. 824 of 1982, notices dated 26.03.2001 and 03.02.2001 issued by the respondent to the petitioners, Acknowledgment Card, returned notices and examined himself as PW1 in both the cases. The Petitioner in CRP No. 3085 of 2007 has marked Ex.R1, certified copy of the Judgment made in O.S. No. 172 of 1981 and examined himself as RW1. The third petitioner in CRP No. 3086 has examined himself as RW1 and marked Ex. R1, certified copy of the judgment made in O.S.No. 172 of 1981.
7. The learned Rent Controller framed two issues namely (i) whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties and (ii) whether the petitioners denied the title of the respondent without any bonafide. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Rent Controller allowed both the RCOP Nos. 8 and 9 of 2001 on 20.06.2005 on the ground that originally the petitioners were tenants under the respondent's vendor and after the property was purchased by the respondent they become tenants under him; that A.S. No. 824 of 1982 filed by the respondent herein was allowed by this Court on 29.09.2000, thus, the respondent has proved the relationship of landlord and tenant; that after A.S.No. 824 of 1982 was allowed in favour of the respondent, he issued notices calling upon the petitioners to pay rental arrears within 30 days but the petitioners have not paid the rent and also denied the title of the respondent without bonafide reasons with the intention not to pay the rent.
8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2005 passed in RCOP Nos. 8 and 9 of 2001, the petitioners herein have filed R.C.A. Nos. 3 and 6 of 2006 respectively. In the said RCA Nos. 3 and 6 of 2006, the first appellate Court, in addition to the issues (i) whether the petitioners herein, without any bonafide reasons denied the title of the respondent (ii) whether the petitioners committed wilful default in payment of rent, framed one more issue that whether the petition mentioned premises is required for the respondent for his own occupation or occupation of his family. The first appellate Court found that the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 172 of 1981 was set aside by this Court in A.S. No. 824 of 1982 on 29.09.2000, thereafter, the respondent issued notices dated 03.02.2001 and 26.03.2001 respectively calling upon the petitioners to pay the arrears of rent to him; that the petitioners have not produced any evidence to show that they have preferred a Letters Patent Appeal against the Judgment dated 29.09.2000 made in A.S.No. 824 of 1982 and that the respondent herein has proved that he is the landlord, whose title was denied by the petitioners without any bonafide reasons and that the petitioners not paid rent even after receipt of the advocate notices issued by the respondent, which amounts to wilful default. In so far as the third issue is concerned, it held that the respondent herein neither canvassed the said issue nor let in evidence, hence, it is unnecessary for it to give any finding, thus the first appellate Court decided the said two issues against the petitioners herein and dismissed the appeals.
9. Mr. Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners advanced the below mentioned arguments;- The petitioners in both the revision petitions and the vendor of the respondent have entered into an oral agreement for sale of the petition mentioned premises, but he without honouring the said oral agreement sold the petition mentioned premises to the respondent herein; that the petitioners have questioned the said sale transaction by filing a suit in O.S. No. 172 of 1981 and sought the relief of specific performance, which was decreed on 03.09.1982; that as against the said decree and judgment dated 03.09.1982, the respondent and others have filed A.S. No. 824 of 1982, which was dismissed by this Court, hence, the petitioners have filed CMP No. 12014 of 2002 in LPA SR No. 10993 of 2000; that in the said CMP No. 12014 of 2002, notice was ordered by this Court and the said case is still pending before this Court. In view of the said reasons, the petitioners have not paid rent and therefore, there is no default, much less wilful default; that in view of the sale agreement, the petitioners are no longer tenants and on that ground also, the non-payment of rent is not wilful.
10. This Court considered the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have alleged that they have entered into an oral agreement of sale with the respondent's vendor, which was not honoured by him, with the result, they have filed O.S. No. 172 of 1981 for specific performance against the respondent, his vendor and others, which was decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment in O.S. No. 172 of 1981, the respondent herein has filed A.S.No. 824 of 1982 before this Court against his vendor and the petitioners herein and others. This Court framed necessary issues namely whether the petitioners herein have proved the factum of agreement of sale and whether the sale in favour of the respondent herein is valid sale or bogus sale and answered the said issues against the petitioners herein thereby set aside the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No. 172 of 1981 by the trial court. Thereafter, the respondent has issued notices calling upon the petitioners to pay the rental arrears, but the petitioner in CRP No. 3085 of 2007 received the notice, but not given any reply and the petitioners in CRP No. 3086 of 2007 even refused to receive the said notices. The courts below considering the decree and judgment passed by this Court in A.S. No. 824 of 1982 and the notices of demand issued by the respondent, came to the conclusion that the petitioners have committed wilful default in payment of rent. The obligation to pay rent is not merely contractual but is also statutory. It is for the landlord to prove the case of wilful default and when the landlord has proved his case of wilful default, the burden lies on the tenant to disprove the same. In this case the landlord/respondent herein proved wilful default, but the tenant/petitioners herein not discharged their burden, hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are guilty of wilful default.
11. It is pointed out by the first appellate court that though the petitioners herein have claimed that they have filed Letters Patent Appeal, not placed any documents or produced any order staying the operation of the decree and judgment dated 29.09.2000 passed in A.S. No. 824 of 1982, even after lapse of six years. It is to be remembered that RCA Nos. 3 and 6 of 2006 were disposed of by the first appellate court on 30.10.2006 and these revision petitions were filed on 21.09.2007 and for the first time, the petitioners, only at the time of admission of these revision petitions claim that LPA SR No. 10993 of 2000 was filed with a delay of 10 days for which CMP No. 12014 of 2002 was filed seeking condonation of the said delay, in which notice was ordered by this Court. It is not explained why the said LPA SR No. 10993 of 2000 filed in the year 2000 was not moved immediately nor furnished details when the notice was ordered by this Court in CMP No. 12014 of 2002 and what is the present stage.
12. A court of equity never aid to stale demands and where the party who slept upon his right and acquiesced for a great length of time, he is then said to be barred by his laches. A person is guilty of laches when he is negligent in the performance of a legal duty, or when he makes delay in asserting a right in claiming a privilege and in applying for redress.
13. It is apparent on the face of record that the petitioner, in order to avoid payment of rent to the respondent have set up a false plea that the respondent has no valid title and persistently continued the said plea even after the first appeal was dismissed by this Court. Thus, they have deliberately not paid any rent nor deposited for 26 years i.e., from 1981 when the property was purchased by the respondent in the year 1981. When the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioners was dismissed by this Court, their failure to obtain order against it, they cannot raise the question again that the landlord has no valid title since the verdict so far as the petitioners are concerned has become final. Hence, the finding of the courts below that the denial of title is not bonafide is perfectly valid. On that ground also, eviction was rightly ordered by the courts below. Moreover, the High Court cannot interfere in exercise of revisionary power under Section 25 of the Act when concurrent findings of the courts below are based on valid evidence and correct application of law.
14. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that there is no merits in the revision petitions, the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly they are dismissed in limine. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. rsh
To
1. The Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Sub Court Tirupur
Coimbatore District.
2. The Rent Controller cum District Munsif District Munsif Court
Tirupur
Coimbatore District.
No comments:
Post a Comment