CRP(MD)/1950/2023 of T. GURUSAMYRAJA Vs T.S.GANESARAJA on 27 October 2026

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the fair and decreetal order, dated 14/07/2023 passed in RCA No.9 of 2021 in RLTOP No.43 of 2019 by the learned Rent Control Appellate Tribunal-cum- Principal Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur, confirming the order, dated 26/11/2021 passed in RLTOP No.43 of 2019 by the learned Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif, Rajapalayam.

2. The petitioner is the Tenant and the respondent is the Landlord. The petitioner states that an oral tenancy agreement was entered into between the parties on 01/07/2008, whereby the second schedule premises was let out to the petitioner/Tenant. An advance of Rs.3,00,000/- was received and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.3,500/-. The tenancy was agreed to be for a period of five years. It is further stated that the Landlord had borrowed money from the Tenant on 16/02/2005 and therefore, instead of paying the rent separately, the rent was adjusted towards the interest payable on the amount borrowed. According to the Landlord, though the prevailing market rent for the premises was about Rs.30,000/- per month, the premises was let out at a lesser rent considering the financial transaction between the parties. The tenancy period expired on 30/06/2013. Thereafter, the Landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation, as he was carrying on business in the name of G.V. Granites and was also engaged in real estate business. Hence, he cancelled the oral tenancy agreement and requested the Tenant to vacate and hand over possession of the premises. Though the Tenant initially agreed to vacate, he failed to do so on one pretext or the other. The Landlord also requested the Tenant to receive the mortgage amount and acknowledge the same. Since the Tenant refused to receive the amount, the Landlord filed Tender O.P No.1 of 2019 before the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur and deposited the mortgage amount together with interest. Even thereafter, the Tenant failed to vacate the premises.

3. It is further stated that the Tenant did not permit the Landlord to enter the premises and that when the same was questioned, an altercation took place and a criminal case was also registered. Thereafter, three proceedings came to be initiated, namely, RLTOP No.42 of 2019 for deposit of rent, RLTOP No.43 of 2019 seeking eviction on the ground of expiry of the tenancy period and RLTOP No.44 of 2019 seeking fixation of fair rent. RLTOP Nos.42 and 43 of 2019 were allowed, whereas RLTOP No.44 of 2019 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order passed in RLTOP No.43 of 2019, the Tenant preferred RCA No.9 of 2021 before the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal was dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Tenant would submit that the Landlord had issued a notice, dated 28/05/2019 alleging default in payment of rent and calling upon the Tenant to vacate and hand over possession. After receipt of the notice, the Tenant paid the rent for three months, but the Landlord refused to receive the same and returned it to the Tenant.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Tenant would further submit that the Landlord had borrowed money from the Tenant agreeing to pay interest and had also executed a registered mortgage deed in respect of his property on 16/02/2005. Since the Landlord failed to repay the amount borrowed, the Tenant instituted O.S Nos.98 of 2020 and 324 of 2020 and both the suits have subsequently been decreed. It is further submitted that the Landlord had filed Tender O.P No.1 of 2019

seeking permission to deposit the rent, but subsequently did not pursue the same and withdrew the amount. Therefore, the Landlord had not approached the Court with clean hands. The learned counsel would further submit that the Landlord refused to receive the rent and therefore, the Tenant sent a sum of Rs.14,000/- towards rent from January 2019 to April 2019 by way of two demand drafts bearing Nos.186277 and 186279 drawn on Axis Bank, Rajapalayam. The Tenant had also paid the electricity charges. However, the Landlord, without the knowledge of the Tenant, paid the electricity charges and therefore, the Tenant sent a sum of Rs.2,007/- towards electricity charges by way of demand draft bearing No.185276 dated 22/05/2019 towards reimbursement. The said demand draft was also returned by the Landlord. It is further submitted that the Tenant repeatedly requested the Landlord to furnish his bank account particulars so that the rent could be deposited directly into the account. However, the Landlord refused to furnish the particulars and returned the amounts sent by the Tenant. According to the learned counsel, the Tenant was always ready and willing to pay the rent and there was no wilful default on his part.

6. With regard to the ground of own use and occupation, the learned counsel would submit that the Landlord himself admitted the existence of the mortgage transaction in favour of the Tenant and therefore, the requirement pleaded by him was not bona fide. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:

(i) .In Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan Lal, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1060, wherein it has been held in para 13 and 14 as follows:- “13.We are of the view that by merely proving that the premises in question is a non-residential building and that the landlord or any member of his family is not occupying for the purpose of a business which he or any member of his family is carrying on any residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own, the landlord cannot in the context in which section 10(3)(a)(iii) appears get a tenant evicted. He must show in view of clause (e) of section 10(3) that his claim is bona fide. The word 'claim' means "a demand for something as due" or "to seek or ask or for on the ground of right" etc. In the context of Rent Control Law which is enacted for the purpose of giving protection to tenants against unreasonable evictions and for the purpose of making equitable distribution of buildings amongst persons who are in need of them in order to prove that his claim is bona fide a landlord should establish that he deserves to be put in possession of the premises which is in the occupation of a tenant. Any decision on the question whether a landlord deserves to be put in possession of a premises in the occupation of a tenant should naturally depend upon the bona fides of the landlord's requirement or need. The word 'claim' in clause (e) of section 10(3) of the Act should, therefore, he construed as 'the requirement' of the landlord or his deservedness. 'Deserve' means 'to have a rightful claim' or 'a just claim'. Since clause (e) of section 10(3) of the Act is also applicable to a petition filed under sub-clause (iii) of section 10(3)(a) of the Act it becomes necessary to examine whether the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. Otherwise a landlord will be able to evict a tenant to satisfy his whim by merely proving the ingredients mentioned in section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act. Take a case where a landlord for some oblique reason wishes to get rid of his tenant from a non-residential building of the category mentioned in section 10(3)(a)(iii) and to achieve his aim fakes to start money-lending business (for which indeed no specified separate portion in a building may be needed) in a building not belonging to him and to create evidence even actually lends money to some of his friends or relatives and a week thereafter applies for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he is carrying on business and has no non- residential building of his own in his occupation in the city, town or village concerned. Apparently, the conditions prescribed in the aforesaid sub-clause (iii) are fulfilled. If the requirement of "claim" being "bona fide" as contained in section 10(3)(e) is construed to mean that genuineness of the need of the landlord for the non-residential building is not to be considered and the circumstances that the landlord on the date of making the application is factually carrying on business and has no non-residential building of his own in his occupation in the city, town or village concerned is to be construed sufficient to make his claim bona fide, the tenancy of no non-residential building will be secure. It will be preposterous to attribute such an intention to the legislature. Such a contingency should be avoided as it would be against the very object of the Act itself. The need of the landlord should be genuine. That is the object of enacting clause (e) of section 10(3) of the Act. When once we reach the above conclusion it is not enough that the landlord should merely desire to use or occupy the premises. What is necessary is that he should bona fide need them for his own use and occupation or for occupation by any of the members of his family as held by this Court in Phiroze Bamanji Desai v. Chandrakant M. Patel & Ors., [1974]

3 S.C.R. 267 and Mattulal v. Radhe Lal, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 127. The learned Judge who decided the case out of which this appeal arises was, therefore, in error in holding that the landlord need not prove that his requirement was bona fide but that his claim was bona fide as provided in clause (e) of section 10(3) of the Act. The learned Judge has made a distinction between `requirement' and `claim' in the present case without there being a difference.

14. In the circumstances we are of the view that M/s. Mahalakshmi's case (supra), M. Abdul Rahman's case (supra) and A. Khan Mohammed's case (supra) have been wrongly decided. They are liable to be overruled. We accordingly overrule them. We hold that a landlord seeking eviction of a tenant from a non- residential premises under section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act in order to succeed in his petition should establish that he bona fide requires the premises in addition to proving the other ingredients referred to therein. The judgment of the High Court which has proceeded on a wrong basis has, therefore, to be set aside. Since the High Court while allowing the revision petition has approached the case from a wrong angle, it is necessary to direct the High Court to decide it afresh in the light of what we have stated above. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and remand it to the High Court again to decide it afresh. If the High Court finds that the case should be remanded to the Trial Court to enable any of the parties to lead evidence on the question of the bona fide requirement of the landlord it may remit the case to the Trial Court.”

(ii) In S.Sundaram Pillai etc. v. V.R. Pattabhiraman, reported in AIR 1985 SC 582, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 25 as follows:- “25.Thus, a consensus of the meaning of the words 'wilful default' appears to indicate that default in order to be wilful must be intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious, with full knowledge of legal consequences flowing therefrom. Taking for instance a case where a tenant commits default after default despite oral demands or reminders and fails to pay the rent without any just or lawful cause, it cannot be said that he is not guilty of wilful default because such a course of conduct manifestly amounts to wilful default as contemplated either by the Act or by other Acts referred to above.”

7. By relying upon the above judgments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Tenant prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Courts below.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Landlord would submit that the Tenant’s intention is merely to grab the petition premises. Though it is admitted that the rent payable by the Tenant was adjusted towards interest, the Tenant has failed to establish that he had been regularly paying the rent.

9. The learned counsel would further submit that the Landlord issued a notice to the Tenant alleging non-payment of rent for the period from January 2019 to April 2019. After receipt of the notice, the Tenant allegedly tendered only a sum of Rs.14,000/- towards four months’ rent. As the amount tendered was inadequate, having regard to the actual rent payable in respect of the petition premises, the Landlord refused to receive the same. It is further contended that the Tenant had failed to pay the rent from the year 2019 onwards and that his conduct clearly establishes wilful default. According to the learned counsel, the Tenant opened a bank account only subsequently and attempted to create evidence to make it appear as though he had been regularly paying the rent.

10. The learned counsel would also submit that the Landlord has no other premises to carry on his business and that he bona fide requires the petition premises for his own use and occupation. It is contended that the Tenant, with the intention of protracting the proceedings and preventing the Landlord from enjoying his property, has initiated successive proceedings and refused to vacate and hand over possession of the petition premises. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the Courts below, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, have rightly ordered eviction and rejected the Tenant’s contentions. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present Civil Revision Petition.

11. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78, wherein the scope of revisional jurisdiction was explained as follows:-

“43.The observation in Ramdoss (2000) 2 SCC 1356 that the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction cannot act as an appellate court/authority and it is impermissible for the High Court to reassess the evidence in a revision petition filed under Section 25 of the Act is in accord with Rukmini and Sankaranarayanan. Its observation that the High Court can interfere with incorrect finding of fact must be understood in the context where such finding is perverse, based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or such finding has been arrived at by ignoring or overlooking the material evidence or such finding is so grossly erroneous that if allowed to stand, will occasion in miscarriage of justice. Ramdoss does not hold that the High Court may interfere with the findings of fact because on re- appreciation of the evidence its view is different from that of the first Appellate Court or Authority. The decision of this Court in V.M. Mohan (2006) 9 SCC 606 is again in line with the judgment of this Court in Rukmini, (1993) 1 SCC 499.”

12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials available on record.

13. The relationship of Landlord and Tenant between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the tenancy commenced pursuant to an oral agreement dated 01/07/2008 and that the monthly rent was initially fixed at Rs.3,500/-.

14. According to the Landlord, the Tenant had not been paying the rent regularly and that the rent payable was adjusted towards the interest due on the amount borrowed by the Landlord in the year 2005. Though the Tenant disputed the said contention and claimed that he had regularly paid the rent, he failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate his claim of regular payment.

15. The principal evidence relied upon by the Tenant in support of his claim is the bank transaction. However, the Tenant has not produced convincing evidence to establish that, prior to the relevant period, the rent had been regularly paid either through banking channels or directly to the Landlord. Nor has the Tenant examined any independent witness to corroborate his claim of regular payment of rent.

16. It is the specific case of the Landlord that the Tenant failed to pay the rent for the period from January 2019 to April 2019 and that the Tenant attempted to tender the rent by way of demand drafts only after receipt of the notice. The subsequent tender of rent, after issuance of the notice, lends support to the Landlord’s contention that the rent had not been regularly paid. Though the Tenant contended that the Landlord had deliberately refused to receive the rent, no satisfactory material, apart from the subsequent demand drafts, has been produced to establish that the Tenant had regularly tendered the rent prior to the issuance of the notice. In these circumstances, the Courts below were justified in concluding that the Tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent.

17. As regards the requirement of the petition premises for own use and occupation, the Landlord has specifically pleaded that he requires the premises for carrying on his business. The materials placed on record also support his case that he is carrying on business and requires the petition premises for his own use and occupation.

18. The contention of the Tenant that the mortgage transaction between the parties renders the Landlord’s requirement not bona fide cannot be accepted. The mortgage transaction and the tenancy constitute distinct transactions, and the rights of the Tenant arising out of the mortgage transaction may be worked out in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

19. The fact that the Tenant has obtained decrees in the mortgage suits would not, by itself, defeat the Landlord’s claim for eviction on the ground of own use and occupation. The Tenant is at liberty to enforce the decrees obtained by him in the manner known to law. The existence of such decrees does not, in itself, disentitle the Landlord from seeking possession of the petition premises, provided the statutory requirements for eviction are otherwise satisfied.

20. In the present case, the Courts below have found that the Tenant committed default in payment of rent for the period from January 2019 to April 2019 and that the rent was tendered only after issuance of the notice. They have also accepted the Landlord’s claim that the petition premises are required for his own use and occupation. On a consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds no sufficient ground to dislodge the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below.

21. The Courts below have considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record and rendered concurrent findings in favour of the Landlord. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, cannot interfere with such findings merely because another view of the evidence may be possible. In the absence of any perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting interference, the concurrent findings of the Courts below do not call for interference in the present Civil Revision Petition.

22. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78, are applicable to the present case. In view of the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and the absence of any ground warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

23. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

27/10/2026 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er To,

1. The Principal Sub Judge, Srivilliputhur.

2. The District Munsif, Rajapalayam.

3. The Section Officer. VR/ER Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

R.POORNIMA.,J er Order made in CRP(MD)No.1950 of 2023 27/10/2026