CRP/2807/2019 of C.VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs A. SELVAGANAPATHY on 17 August 2026

ORDER

The landlady is the revision petitioner, aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the Appellate Authority and setting aside the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller.

2. I have heard Mr.N.Vijayaraj, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlady and Mr.N.Selva Rajan, learned counsel for the respondent/tenant. I have also gone through the records, including the order of the learned Rent Controller and the judgment of the Appellate Authority.

3. The petitioner, as landlady, sought for eviction of the respondent/tenant invoking Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents. The said application was resisted by the respondent and after due enquiry, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction. The said order was challenged before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.203 of 2014 and the IX Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, in and by a judgment dated 31.08.2017, allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent, thereby dismissing RCOP.No.2110 of 2011. It is challenging the said judgment and decree of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the present revision petition has been filed.

4. Mr.N.Vijayaraj, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would state that the learned Rent Controller had rightly appreciated the evidence, in the light of the pleadings and found that the respondent had committed not only default in payment of rents, but also rendered a finding, as mandated under the provisions of the Act that such default was wilful. In this regard, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would take me through the stand taken by the respondent in the counter statement before the learned Rent Controller and also further material circumstances, pending disposal of the eviction petition. He would therefore drive home the point that even after initiation of the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller, the respondent has not been prompt in regular payment of rents, which was duly taken note of by the learned Rent Controller, while ordering eviction. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed.

5. Per contra, N.Selva Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/tenant would state that the petitioner, while giving evidence as P.W.1, had categorically admitted to the fact that the petitioner used to receive rents once in five to six months, as and when paid by the respondent and she had also admitted to the fact that on the date of her deposition, the respondent was not in any arrears of rent. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of this Court in Sudha Devi Vs. M.Lalitha, reported in CDJ 2010 MHC 4741. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

7. The petitioner filed the eviction petition in RCOP.No.2110 of 2011, alleging wilful default in payment of rents for the period June 2011 to November 2011. There is no dispute with regard to either jural relationship of landlady and tenant or the quantum of rent that has been mutually arrived at between the parties. In response to the eviction petition, the respondent/tenant contended that till June 2011, he has been promptly paying the rents every month by cheques and the said cheques have also been encashed by the petitioner. However, according to the respondent, in July 2011, the petitioner herself wanted to change the mode of payment, but however, the petitioner never informed the respondent about the preferred mode of payment and in fact, refused to receive the rents from the respondent under some pretext or the other.

8. Further, it has been contended by the respondent that the Demand Draft favouring the entire arrears of rent, namely Rs.60,000/- was drawn in favour of the petitioner bearing No.344378, issued by Vijaya Bank, which was sent by registered post and acknowledged to the petitioner. However, the said postal cover was returned with an endorsement ‘instrument delivered/not claimed’ and on the first hearing date of the RCOP, the respondent has produced a written postal cover, which was opened before the Court in the presence of the learned Rent Controller and the Demand Draft was received by the petitioner also.

9. It was therefore contended by the respondent that there is no default, much less, wilful default in payment of rents. The learned Rent Controller, after noticing the pleadings, as well as oral and documentary evidence, found that though six months rent, for which default was originally alleged, was paid during the proceedings, even thereafter, namely the very next month onwards the respondent committed default and did not pay rents. Further, the petitioner had to file a Section 11(4) application, seeking a direction to the respondent to pay the entire arrears of rent and on such failure to stop further proceedings in the main eviction petition and straight away ordered eviction, as contemplated under Section 11(4) of the Act.

10. However, it is an admitted fact that after filing of the Section 11(4) application, the respondent paid the entire arrears in one lump sum. This conduct of the respondent was taken note of by the learned Rent Controller and while ordering eviction, holding that the respondent had committed wilful default in payment of rents. However, the Appellate Authority has reversed the findings of the learned Rent Controller, on the ground that when the respondent had attempted to pay the entire arrears of rent, even prior to the first hearing date and since the postal cover had been returned and the Demand Draft was handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner in the open Court on the first hearing date of the RCOP, the tenant cannot be termed as a ‘wilful defaulter’ and rendered liable for eviction on the ground of wilful default.

11. It is settled law that it is the duty of the tenant to pay rents, without expecting a demand every month from the landlord. Here, admittedly there is no dispute with regard to rents up to June 2011. However, the petitioner has come to Court with a categorical case that the respondent has failed pay rents from July 2011 up to November 2011 and that the default was deliberate and wilful. It is relevant to note the stand of the respondent in the counter statement filed before the learned Rent Controller. The respondent has taken a stand that in July 2011 up to an inclusive of rents for June 2011, the same were paid by way of cheques and the cheques were also duly encashed by the petitioner. However, from July 2011, according to the respondent, the petitioner wanted a change in the mode of payment and thereafter, she refused to receive rents. If really there was any such refusal, the respondent ought to have initiated proceedings under Section 8(5) of the Act, seeking to deposit the rents into Court, after complying with the mandate of subsection 2 to subsection 4 of Section 8. Admittedly, the same has not been done in the present case.

12. Even assuming that the respondent attempted to pay the arrears by registered post and the Demand Draft was received on the first hearing date of RCOP, the rents were paid up to November 2011 alone, even thereafter, the respondent has not paid monthly rents regularly, which compelled the petitioner to move an application under Section 11(4), claiming arrears of rent from

December 2011 to August 2012. The entire arrears was paid only pending the Section 11(4) application in one lump sum. This conduct of the respondent has been taken note of by the Rent Controller in holding that the respondent is guilty of committing wilful default in payment of rents. However, the Appellate Authority has erroneously ignored the material evidence and subsequent conduct, even pending the eviction petition, that too, on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, by merely recording the fact that since the entire arrears of rent have been paid on the first hearing date, the tenant is not liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default. I am unable to countenance the approach of the Appellate Authority.

13. As already stated, it is the duty of the tenant to discharge his statutory obligation insofar as payment of rents is concerned, every month without expecting any demand whatsoever from the landlord/landlady. When the respondent himself claims in the counter statement that the petitioner refused to receive rents from July 2011, nothing prevented the respondent from invoking the beneficial provisions under Section 8 of the Act and deposit rents into Court and thereby avoid eviction proceedings. The same has not been done.

14. Even though the default period referred to in the RCOP was June 2011 to November 2011 (six months) and rents for six months have been paid on the first hearing date, even from the immediate succeeding month, namely

December 2011 onwards, the respondent has not paid the rents up to August 2012. This only exposes the callous attitude and deliberate omission on the part of the respondent to pay rents regularly. Only after filing of the Section 11(4) application, the nine months arrears were cleared. This was rightly factored by the learned Rent Controller in holding the respondent guilty of wilful default and thereby, rendering him liable to be evicted under section 10(2)(i) of the Act.

15. Though, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of this Court in Sudha Devi’s case, that was a case where this Court found that though the petitioner had not resorted to Section 8, on facts, the landlady was also equally at fault and therefore, proceeded to hold that the tenant cannot be held guilty of wilful default. This decision has been pressed into service by the learned counsel for the respondent to contend that when the petitioner as P.W.1 had clearly admitted to the fact that she had received the entire arrears of rent on the first hearing date of RCOP and that the tenant was in the habit of paying rents once in five / six months and that as from the date of her giving evidence, there was no default. I do not see how the deposition of P.W.1 can be put against the petitioner to portray the case, as if the landlady was also at fault.

16. Merely because the petitioner happened to receive the rents as and when paid by the respondent, it does not amount to a waiver of the statutory obligations cast upon the respondent to pay months rents as and when it falls due. In such circumstances, relying on the decision of this Court in Sudha Devi’s case on facts of those case finding that despite receipt of cheques from the tenant, the respondent did not even respond and also did not encash the cheques or return the same to the tenant. I do not see how this decision can be applied to the facts of the present case. More so, as already discussed, even after the initiation of the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller, that too, alleging that the tenant is a wilful defaulter in payment of rents, the respondent has adopted such a casual approach in not paying the rents promptly, even from December 2011 up to August 2012, which was paid in a lump sum, after being put on notice in the Section 11(4) application. Such subsequent conduct of the respondent also can be rightly taken note of and has been done by the Rent Controller.

17. However, unfortunately, the Appellate Authority has erroneously set aside the well considered order of the Rent Controller, on the sole ground that six months defaulted rents have been paid on the first hearing date, without even factoring the defense raised by the respondent in the counter statement. In the light of the above, I am inclined to set aside the erroneous findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, namely the learned IX Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in RCA.No.203 of 2014 dated 31.08.2017 and restore the order of the learned Rent Controller, namely the learned XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in RCOP.No.2110 of 2011 dated 13.02.2014.

18. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the judgment of the IX Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, in RCA.No.203 of 2014 dated 31.08.2017 is set aside and the order of the learned XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in RCOP.No.2110 of 2011 dated 13.02.2014 is restored. The respondent shall vacate and hand over vacant possession to the petitioner on or before 30.11.2026. No costs. 17.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ATA To

1. The IX Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2. The XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

P.B.BALAJI, J. ATA CRP No.2807 of 2019 17.08.2026