Murugan, v. N.S. Murugan,

ORDER The present civil revision petition has been filed against the order, dated 22.09.2022 made in I.A.No.2 of 2021 R.C.A.No.10 of 2019 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thoothukudi.

¶2The petitioner is the second respondent in R.C.O.P.No.69 of 2014 before the District Munsif Court, Tuticorin. The said R.C.O.P was allowed by the trial Court by its order, dated 14.03.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed R.C.O.P.No.10 of 2019. In the said proceedings, the respondent filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 under Section 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 to direct the petitioner herein to pay the arrears of rent for the period between 2013 and 2023.

¶3It is the specific case of the petitioner that one Sivakumar, who is the tenant of the respondent landlord was a collecting agent and that arrears were paid to the said collection agent. Reference is made to the following paragraph: ",e;j epiyapy; Nkw;gb rptFkhh; Mdth; v.k.rh.2 Mf tprhhpf;fg;gl;Ls;shh;. mth; jd;Dila Kjy; tprhuizapy; epy chpikahshplk; KUfd; vd;gtiu mioj;J nrd;wjhfTk;> mth; ,l chpikahshplk; &.50 Mapuk; Kd; gzk; nfhLj;Js;sjhfTk;> fhyp nra;a Ntz;Lk; vd;w gpur;rid 2 tUlj;jpw;F Kd;G ele;jjhfTk; gpur;rid Muk;gpj;jTld; thlif thq;f khl;Nld; vd;W epy chpikahsh; nrhy;yptpl;lhh;. ey;yjq;f Mde;j jpUkdp jhth nrhj;jpy; ve;j xU epWtdKk;

elj;jtpy;iy

vd;W

rhl;rpak; mspj;jpUf;fpwhh;."

¶4It is submitted that there are no arrears of rent payable to the respondent landlord and therefore, the impugned order directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.10,99,750/- is liable to be interfered with.

¶5Opposing the prayer in the present civil revision petition, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that order is well reasoned and requires no interference. It is submitted that the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that the amount has been paid and therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

¶6I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under: "6. ,Ujug;G thjq;fisAk; ghprPyid nra;jjpy;> Nky;KiwaPl;lhsh/vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; ,.ep.tp.k.vz;. 1--2019y; kDjhuh/Nky;KiwaPl;lhsuhf U/s.2392) of TNB(L&RC) Act gb Mh;.rp.x.gp.69--2014 kDtpy; 14.03.2019y; gpwg;gpj;j cj;jutpid epWj;jp itf;ff;Nfhhp jil cj;juT toq;f jdpahf xU kD jhf;fy; nra;Js;shh;. mjw;F ,k;kDjhuh/vjph;kDjhuh/vjph;Nky;KiwaPl;lhsh; jug;gpy; Ml;Nrgid nra;J vjpUiu jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. ,k;kDtpy;> vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;s vjpUiuapy; thlid ghf;fp vJTk; itf;ftpy;iy vd;Wk;> khjhkhjk; thlif njhifia rptFkhh; %ykhf 1k;kDjhuhplk; nrYj;jp tUtjhf %$wpAs;s epiyapy; mjid ep&g;gpf;Fk; tifapy; vjph;kDjhuh; jug;gpy; Mtzq;fs; vJTk; jhf;fy;

nra;ag;gltpy;iy.

NkYk;>

tprhuiz ePjpkd;wkhdJ tof;fpid tprhuiznra;J Mh;.rp.x.gp. 69--2014 kDtpy; cj;juT toq;fpAs;s epiyapy;> Nkw;gb cj;jutpid vjph;j;J ,e;j vjph;kDjhuh; ,e;j Nky;KiwaPl;L

kDtpid

jhf;fy;

nra;Js;s epiyapy;> ,e;j vjph;kDjhuh; jug;G vjpUiuapy; $wpAs;s rq;fjpfs;

Fwpj;J

Nky;KiwaPl;L

tof;fpd; tprhuizapd;NghJ jhd; njhpatUk; vd;fpd;w epiyapy;> kDjhuh; jug;G kDtpy; $wpAs;s rq;fjpfis fUj;jpy;nfhz;L jkpo;ehL fl;blq;fs; Fj;jif kw;Wk; thlif fl;Lg;ghl;L rl;lk; gphpT 11(4)d; fPo; thlif ghf;fpapid ,e;ePjpkd;wk; itg;gPL nra;tNj rl;lj;jpd; ghh;itapy; rhp vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; ,Wjp nra;fpwJ. ,Wjpahf kDjhuhpd; kD mDkjpf;fg;gl;L> thlif ghf;fp njhifahd &.10>99>750/-ia vjph;kDjhuh; /Nky;KiwaPl;lhsh; ,t;Tj;juT gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l 15 jpdq;fSf;Fs; ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; itg;gPL nra;a Ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;> jtWk; gl;rj;jpy; 10.10.2022 Njjpad;W vt;tpj tprhuizAkpd;wp Mh;.rp.V.10--2019 tof;F js;Sgb nra;ag;gLk; vd;Wk; cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ."

¶7In my view, the petitioner has not produced any evidence to substantiate that the arrears of rent for the period between 2013 and 2023 has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference.

¶8Considering the fact that the petitioner is running a shop in the lease premises, time is given to the petitioner to deposit the amount within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which, the respondent is entitled to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶9The present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

05.04.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn To

1.The learned Subordinate Judge, Thoothukudi.

2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. C.SARAVANAN

,J.

SN

05.04.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.04.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and C.M.P(MD)No.4132 of 2023 Murugan ... Petitioner/Respondent/ Appellant Vs. 1.N.S.Murugan Gandhimathi (Died) ... Respondents/Petitioner/ Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order made in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in R.C.A.10 of 2019, dated 22.09.2022 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thoothukudi. For Petitioner : M/s.C.Geetha For Respondents : Mr.K.Jeyamohan