G GEETHA Vs. S R KRISHNAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment in R.C.A.No.10 of 2007 which had arisen out of an order passed in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Subordinate Judge, Tiruppathur is under challenge in C.R.P(NPD) No.3993 of 2008. THE respondents in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2006 are the appellants in R.C.A.No.10 of 2007. R.C.O.P.No.8 of 2006 was filed under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(c) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Hereinafter referred to as "Act") by the landlord. THE learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on the basis of oral and documentary evidence let in before him had allowed the petition filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act and dismissed the petition in respect of the relief claimed under Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(c) of the Act. Against the findings in respect of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the respondents have preferred R.C.A.No.10 of 2007 and Cross Rent Control Appeal No.3 of 2008 was filed by the petitioners in respect of the findings regarding Sections 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(c) of the Act by the learned Rent Controller.

(2.) THE tenant has filed R.C.O.P.No.11 of 2006 under Section 8(5) of the Act permitting him to deposit the monthly rent of Rs.1000/- into Court. THE learned Rent Controller had dismissed the said petition against which R.C.A.No.11 of 2007 was preferred by the tenant. THE learned Rent Control Appellate Authority finding no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 2006 had dismissed R.C.A.No.11 of 2007 confirming the orders of the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 2006 which is under challenge in C.R.P.(NPD) No.3994 of 2008. Against the order of dismissal of Cross Rent Control Appeal No.3 of 2008 in R.C.A.No.10 of 2007, the respondents in R.C.A.No.10 of 2007 /landlords have preferred C.R.P(NPD) No.3995 of 2008.

(3.) IN the counter by the second respondent adopted by the respondents 1 and 3, the respondents would allege that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondents exists. The petitioners father S.K.Rajagopal was the owner of the petition schedule building and the first respondent's husband and the father of respondents 2 and 3 viz., Mr.G.Gajendran came down to Tiruppathur to Ambur Town in the year 1966-67 for his livelihood, settled at Thiruppathur and started "Gajendran Engineering Works" in the petition schedule building bearing door No.15 on a monthly rent of Rs.1000/-. M.G. Gajendran had also obtained licence from the Department of Small Scale INdustries, Government of Tamil Nadu, under the name and style of "Sukumar Engineering Works". At the inception of the said Engineering Works, the said Gajendran used oil engine to operate the machines. After obtaining the licence , the said M.G. Gajendran applied for an Electric Service Connection to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 4.10.1968 and paid the caution deposit of Rs.200/- to the Electricity Board and the Electricity Board sanctioned the service connection under the category of INdustrial Tariff bearing service connection No.3696 on 23.11.1968 in the name of M.G. Gajendran. The present service connection number is AO4/828. The said M.G. Gajendran slowly developed his industry and at present there are four lathe machine, two grinding machine, one welding set , one shaping machine, two drilling machine, hydralic machine and one generator in the industry and nearly ten workers are working in the industry situated in the petition schedule building. Without any default, the rent for the suit premises has been paid by M.G. Gajendran regularly. But the landlord is not in the habit of giving any receipt for the payment of rent. The property tax was also paid only by M.G.Gajendran. The landlord never attended to the minor repairs in the building from the date of inception. A sum of Rs.5000/- was paid by the tenant towards advance. The rent was gradually increased from Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- in the month of December 2000. After the death of M.G. Gajendran on 16.1.2001, the rent was paid by the respondents to the first petitioner. After the death of the original landlord S.K. Rajagopal, the first petitioner used to collect the monthly rent from the tenant and he is also not in the habit of giving any receipt for the rent paid by the tenants. Even after the death of M.G. Gajendran, the second respondent is continuing the industry and he is paying the monthly rent to the first petitioner from February 2001 and also paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as an additional advance to the first petitioner without any default till date. There was no endorsement made by the petitioners in a pocket note book for the rent paid by the respondents as alleged in the petition. There was no fault much less wilful default committed by the respondents in payment of rent. The respondents have paid the monthly rent till November 2005. When the rent for December 2005 was tendered by the second respondent, the first petitioner had refused to receive the same with an evil intention to create a ground of default in payment of rent to evict the tenant from the petition schedule building. The second respondent sent money order for a sum of Rs.1000/- towards the rent for the month of December 2005 to the first petitioner which was returned as refused to receive. Again, the second respondent sent money order for Rs.2000/- being the rent for the month of December 2005 and January 2006 which was also returned as refused. Hence the legal notice was sent by the second respondent to the first petitioner to mention the mode of payment of rent to them and notice was served upon them but no reply was received from the petitioners. Thereafter, the first respondent sent a money order for Rs.3000/- being the rent for the months of December 2005, January and February 2006 which was also returned as refused. Hence the second respondent has filed a petition under Section 8(5) of the Act under H.R.C.O.P.No. 11 of 2006 and regularly depositing the monthly rent after due notice to the counsel appearing for the respondents in that petition and there is no any arrears of rent till date. Since the first petitioner was collecting the rent, after the death of M.G. Gajendran, the respondents are paying the rent continuously to the first petitioner. Hence the claim of the petitioners that the respondent have committed wilful default has no leg to stand. The petitioners were previously carrying on business for selling medicines under the name and style of "Sakthi Medicals" and they shifted it to the departmental store itself and continuing the business in that premises and the building is now vacant. Apart from that shop bearing door No.16, new Door No.11/D the petitioners are having nearly eighteen shops of their own bearing door No.11/D,19/1,19/3,19/4,19/5,19/6,19/7,19/8,12/17,13/19,14/2, 15/23 and 15/25 out of which the petitioners are in possession of eight buildings and other buildings are rented out for several tenants. The petitioners are running a Departmental Store, Rani Cool Drinks Bar in their own buildings. The petitioners evicted a tenant who carried on "Ambika Ice Factory" under the pretext that they will construct the building and give it to him for rent but they failed to do so and leased it to some other person and the tenant filed a suit as against the petitioners. IN the same manner, the petitioners tried to evict another tenant in Door No.14 and he also filed a suit. The deceased M.G. Gajendran along with others carried on a Finance Corporation in the name and style of "New Finance Corporation" in the premises belonged to the petitioners and the petitioners requested them to vacate the premises for demolition and reconstruction with an undertaking that they will lease it out to them after reconstruction, but the petitioners leased it to a third party who is carrying on business under the name and style "Sankar Machinery Stores" in that premises. It is the usual practice of the petitioners to demand higher rent and advance and if the tenants refused to accept their demand and the petitioners will issue notice as if there is arrears of rent taking advantage of non issuing of receipts for the payment of rent by the petitioners. The petitioners have also closed the well in the petition mentioned property since it affects his another building as per "Vastu Sashtra" and agreed to provide water from "Raja Complex" belongs to the petitioners but they have not provided them any alternative arrangement for the respondents to get drinking water. The respondents are making minor repairs from the date of inception of the tenancy in the petition schedule building and are getting the building in good condition. The petitioners try to demolish the well and roof of the petition mentioned property with an evil intention to cause damages to the building but the second respondent managed to curtail their illegal action by filing a suit on the file of this Court in O.S.No.27 of 2006 and obtained an order of injunction against the petitioners not to cause damages to the building and the suit is pending. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.