Case Note & Summary
The revision petition was filed by the tenant, Mrs. Palkani, challenging the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Court (XII Small Causes Court, Chennai) in R.L.T.O.P.No.63 of 2020 and the Appellate Court (II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai) in R.L.T.A.No.111 of 2023. The landlords, Mr. J. Raghu and Mr. J. Jaikumar, had sought eviction under Sections 21(2)(a), 21(2)(b), 21(2)(d), and 21(2)(g) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. The landlords purchased the property on 05.10.2016 and claimed that the tenant had not paid rent since October 2016. They issued a legal notice on 07.09.2019 demanding arrears of rent at Rs.1,100/- per month. The tenant replied on 30.09.2019 agreeing to pay arrears but requested registration of a tenancy agreement. The landlords sent a rejoinder on 14.10.2019 and a draft agreement on 18.11.2019, but the tenant did not execute it. The tenant contended that she was originally inducted by one Krishnaiah and had been paying rent regularly, but the landlords refused to receive rent. She claimed to have filed R.C.O.P.No.613 of 2019 for deposit of rent. The Rent Court found that the tenant had not proved payment of rent after October 2016 and that the landlords' need for additional accommodation for their family business was bona fide. The Appellate Court confirmed these findings. The High Court held that the concurrent findings were based on evidence and not perverse, and dismissed the revision petition. The court observed that the tenant's claim of payment was not supported by receipts or bank statements, and the landlords' need for additional accommodation was genuine. The revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Willful Default - Section 21(2)(a) Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 - Tenant failed to prove payment of rent after October 2016 despite landlords' notice - Held that non-payment of rent for a long period constitutes willful default (Paras 2-6). B) Rent Control - Additional Accommodation - Section 21(2)(g) Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 - Landlords sought eviction for additional accommodation for their family business - Tenant's objection that landlords have other premises not substantiated - Held that bona fide need for additional accommodation is a ground for eviction (Paras 7-9). C) Civil Procedure - Revision - Article 227 of Constitution of India - Scope of interference with concurrent findings of fact - Held that High Court in revision under Article 227 cannot re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or without jurisdiction (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the concurrent findings of the Rent Court and Appellate Court regarding willful default and additional accommodation under Sections 21(2)(a) and 21(2)(g) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Willful default
- Additional accommodation
- Bona fide requirement
- Concurrent findings
- Revision jurisdiction under Article 227
