Tenant’s 4–5-Month Rent Batches And Unapproved Renovations: Madras HC Upholds Eviction, Gives One Month To Vacate

The landlord sought eviction of the tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 6 of 2016 on grounds of wilful default, unauthorised construction and subletting.

The Rent Controller rejected the subletting ground but ordered eviction for wilful default and unauthorised construction; the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the tenant’s appeal in R.C.A. No. 3 of 2024

The tenancy agreement required monthly rent to be paid by the fifth day of each month and prohibited construction or renovation without the landlord’s consent

The tenant challenged the concurrent eviction orders under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act

The revision was brought under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act

The Court applied the principle that concurrent findings of the rent-control authorities are not to be disturbed in revision absent perversity warranting interference

It also considered the tenancy terms requiring monthly rent and prohibiting repairs or renovations without the landlord’s consent

No precedent or further statutory provision was cited in the order.

The tenant’s witness admitted that rent was commonly paid in batches of four to five months rather than monthly, and counsel acknowledged that rent had been paid only in December for the preceding year; counsel also stated that rent from January 2026 onward remained unpaid

The Court treated these admissions as supporting the finding of default.

As to the premises, the tenant admitted renovating without the landlord’s prior consent, contrary to the tenancy terms; the Court therefore upheld the finding on unauthorised work

The subletting ground had been rejected below and was not appealed by the landlord

Finding no perversity in the concurrent decisions, the Court declined to interfere

The tenant was directed to vacate and deliver vacant possession to the landlord within one month from receipt of a copy of the order.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed