DIBYENDU CHOUDHUR Vs. M. ALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of Rent Control proceedings. The Tenant is the Revision Petitioner. The Respondent/ Landlady filed a Petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default and also Petition for fixation of Fair Rent. Both the Petitions filed by the Respondent were dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground there was no Jural relationship of Landlord and Tenant. Aggrieved by the same, the Respondent preferred two Rent Control Appeals. The Appeal against the dismissal of Eviction Petition was partly allowed by setting aside the finding of Rent Controller with regard to Jural relationship. The Appellate Authority held that the Jural relationship of Landlord and Tenant was established and amount deposited by the Petitioner and withdrawn by the Respondent shall be treated as Rent payable by the Petitioner. However, the dismissal of Eviction Petition was confirmed. The Appeal filed against dismissal of Fair Rent Petition was allowed by fixing Fair Rent at the rate of Rs.61,850.00 per month. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has come by way of these two Revisions.

(2.) According to the Respondent/Landlady, the Petitioner is a Tenant under her in respect of the Non-Residential/Commercial building. The Rental Agreement was entered into on 1/10/2003 and the agreed Monthly Rent was Rs.9,000.00 per month. Since there was Agreement to increase the Rent at the rate of 5% per every 11 months period, on the date of filing Eviction Petition the agreed Monthly Rent was Rs.9,450..00 It was claimed by the Respondent that Petitioner had committed default in payment of Rent from February-2005. Therefore, the Respondent issued a Lawyer Notice on 26/12/2007 calling upon the Petitioner to pay the arrears of Rent from February-2005 to November-2007. The Petitioner came up with a Reply Notice, dtd. 7/1/2008 with false allegations. In spite of Rejoinder by the Respondent, Petitioner failed to pay the Rent. It was further averred by the Respondent that she had borrowed a sum of Rs.17,42,065.00 from the Petitioner for interest to discharge Mortgage Loan obtained by her from Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation. The Petitioner insisted the Respondent to execute Sale Agreement in his favour as a Security for Loan transaction. It was claimed by the Respondent that she had no intention to sell the demised premises to Petitioner and no Sale Agreement was executed by her in favour of Petitioner. It was also claimed that there was no clause in the Agreement to the effect that Tenant need not pay Rent to the demised premises. The Suit for Specific Performance field by the Petitioner was resisted by the Respondent by contending that Agreement was a Security for a Loan transaction. Thus, on the specific allegation that Petitioner committed default in payment of Rent from February-2005 to November-2007, for a period of 34 months, the Respondent laid the Petition for eviction. While the said Petition was pending, the Respondent also filed a Petition seeking fixation of Fair Rent at the rate of Rs.1,99,560.74 per month.

(3.) The Petitioner herein filed Counter Affidavit and resisted both the Petitions on the ground that Petitioner and Respondent entered into Sale Agreement in respect of the demised premises on 7/3/2005 and as per the terms of said Agreement, the Respondent agreed to sell the demised premises to the Petitioner for a total Sale consideration of Rs.24,24,000..00 It was claimed by the Petitioner that he paid a sum of Rs.17,42,065.00 to Respondent towards the portion of the Sale consideration and together with Rental Advance of Rs.1,50,000,.00 the total amount paid by the Petitioner to Respondent towards Advance amount for purchase of demised premises would come to Rs.18,92,065..00 It was also claimed by the Petitioner that he had been in possession of demised premises in part performance of the Agreement and hence, the relationship of Landlord-Tenant had got extinguished. It was claimed by the Petitioner that as Respondent failed to come forward to execute Sale Deed in pursuance of Agreement, he was constrained to file a Suit for Specific Performance against the Respondent in C.S. No.978 of 2005 on the file of this Court and obtained Status quo Order not to disturb his possession or not to alienate the property. The said Suit was later on transferred to the City Civil Court, Chennai and renumbered as O.S. No.5387 of 2011. It was claimed by the Petitioner that the Respondent even in the Written Statement filed in the Suit did not raise any issue regarding non-payment of Rent and wilful default. The Respondent, who kept quiet for nearly 3 years suddenly filed Eviction Petition as a counter blast to the Suit for Specific Performance filed by the Petitioner. It was also claimed by the Petitioner that the Fair Rent claimed by the Respondent was on higher side having regard to the value of the demised property.