Skip to content


P.M. Abdul Azeez alias Razee' Prop. Razee and Co. Vs. A.M.E. Jainab Machi by authorised agent A.K.M. Junaid (05.02.1973 - MADHC) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1973)1MLJ421
AppellantP.M. Abdul Azeez alias Razee' Prop. Razee and Co.
RespondentA.M.E. Jainab Machi by authorised agent A.K.M. Junaid
Excerpt:
- .....section 10(2)(i) of the madras buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1960, on the ground of wilful default on the part of the tenant in the payment of rent from 1st december, 1967 to 31st may, 1968 (six months). the tenancy was determined by notice dated 4th june, 1968. the defence is that no wilful default has been committed., that as usual the respondent herein (landlord) used to collect the rent in lump sums and that he failed to turn up for the collection and that soon after the receipt of the notice dated 4th june, 1968, the (tenant) tendered the rents to the agent who promised to receive the same after getting confirmation from the owner and that the arrears were paid into court on 10th september, 1968 and on subsequent dates. the further contention put forward is that the.....
Judgment:

V.V. Raghavan, J.

1. The tenant is the petitioner. The landlord's application is for eviction under Section 10(2)(i) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the ground of wilful default on the part of the tenant in the payment of rent from 1st December, 1967 to 31st May, 1968 (six months). The tenancy was determined by notice dated 4th June, 1968. The defence is that no wilful default has been committed., that as usual the respondent herein (landlord) used to collect the rent in lump sums and that he failed to turn up for the collection and that soon after the receipt of the notice dated 4th June, 1968, the (tenant) tendered the rents to the agent who promised to receive the same after getting confirmation from the owner and that the arrears were paid into Court on 10th September, 1968 and on subsequent dates. The further contention put forward is that the petition has been filed in order to get more rent. The 7th Judge of the Court of Small Causes (Rent Controller) held that the petitioner herein has not committed wilful default in the payment of rent from 1st December, 1967 to 31st May, 1968, that the petition as framed is not maintainable and that the notice terminating the tenancy was validly issued. In the result, the petition was dismissed.

2. On appeal, the appellate authority reversed the decision of the Rent Controller. The learned Judge took into account the past conduct and the failure of the tenant to pay rents regularly and the various circumstances and came to the conclusion that the tenant committed wilful default in the payment of rent from 1st December, 1967 to 31st May, 1968.

3. On the question whether the landlord used to collect rents in lump sums periodically, the learned Judge referred to Exhibits P-8 to P-11 and held that the practice that the landlord used to receive rents periodically has not been made out. Finally, the learned appellate Judge came to the conclusion that the consistent conduct of the petitioner (tenant) in defaulting payment of rent is deliberate and that he is a chronic defaulter liable to be evicted. In the result, the appeal was allowed and the relief of eviction granted.

4. The present revision is filed against the said order of the learned Judge. Mr. Yahia appearing for the petitioner contends that the finding of the learned Judge on the question of wilful default is not justified and that the petition for eviction is not maintainable for the reason that it has been filed not by the person who has been authorised to file it and that the power of attorney on the basis of which the application has been filed has not been filed into Court.

5. On the question of wilful default, the finding of the learned Judge is that the tenant has as a fact committed wilful default and it is not open to the learned Counsel to go behind that finding and contend contra.

6. On the question regarding the maintainability of the application, it is pointed out that the power of attorney has been granted in favour of the partnership firm and one of the partners has filed the present application.

7. In my view, the filing of an application by one of the partners of the firm which has been constituted as an agent of the landlord is sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The objection on this ground also fails.

8. In the result, the revision petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The petitioner is given six months time to vacate.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //