Madras HC Upholds Tenant’s Eviction, Finding No Proof Of Regular Rent Payments Before Landlord’s Notice

In brief

The question

1. Whether the concurrent finding that the Tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent warranted interference in revision

The court held

The Court found no ground to interfere with the findings on wilful default or the Landlord’s own-use requirement.

It also directed

It dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions

01Facts

The Tenant occupied the Landlord’s premises under an oral tenancy commencing on 1 July 2008, at an initial monthly rent of Rs.3,500; the parties disputed whether rent had been regularly paid and whether it had been adjusted against interest on a loan from the Landlord

¶ 2, 13–15

The Landlord sought eviction, and the Rent Controller allowed RLTOP No.43 of 2019; the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Tenant’s appeal. The Tenant challenged those concurrent orders under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act

¶ 3, 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the concurrent finding that the Tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent warranted interference in revision

¶ 14–16, 20–22

ii.2. Whether the Landlord’s claim that the premises were required for his own use and occupation was bona fide, notwithstanding the parties’ mortgage dispute and the Tenant’s decrees in related suits

¶ 17–20

03Law Applied

Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act confers revisional jurisdiction; under *Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh*, (2014) 9 SCC 78, a revisional court does not reassess evidence merely because another view is possible, but may interfere where findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, based on misreading or disregard of material evidence, or otherwise grossly erroneous

¶ 11, 21–22

The Court also relied on the principle that a mortgage transaction and a tenancy are distinct, and that rights under a mortgage or decrees obtained in mortgage suits may be pursued separately and do not, by themselves, defeat an otherwise established eviction claim

¶ 18–19

Provisions in the judgment · 2

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 Section 25Section 10

04Reasoning

The Tenant did not provide sufficient documentary or independent evidence of regular rent payments before the relevant period. The demand drafts tendered after the Landlord’s notice did not establish prior regular payment; the Courts below therefore had a basis for finding wilful default

¶ 14–16

The Court accepted the Landlord’s pleaded business requirement and supporting materials, and held that the mortgage dispute and the Tenant’s decrees did not, on their own, negate that requirement

¶ 17–19

Finding no perversity, illegality, or material irregularity in the concurrent decisions, the Court declined to disturb them under its limited revisional jurisdiction

¶ 20–22