Madras High Court
M/S.S.R.M.Technologies Private Ltd., vs Atluri Sreekar, on 8 July, 2026
CRP No. 484 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON 17.04.2026
DELIVERED ON 08.07.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA
CRP No. 484 of 2026
AND
CMP NO. 2695 OF 2026
M/s.S.R.M.Technologies Private Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
No.24, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai -600 017.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Atluri Sreekar,
Son of Atluri Poornachandra Rao,
A-21, Manyata Residency,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore -560 045.
2. Atluri Kireet,
S/o.A.V.Ratnakar,
435, East 79th Street,
Apt 8M, New York, 10075,
Represented by his Power Agent
Atluri Sridevi,
Flat No.D1, 4th Floor,
Door No.5/3, 1st Street,
Avvai Shanmugam Road,
Royapettah, Chennai -600 014.
3. Atluri Naveen,
S/o.A.V.Ratnakar,
Flat No.D1, 4th Floor,
Door No.5/3, 1st Street,
Avvai Shanmugam Road,
Royapettah, Chennai -600 014.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page1 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
CMP No. 2695 of 2026
M/s.S.R.M.Technologies Private Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
No.24, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai -600 017.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Atluri Sreekar,
Son of Atluri Poornachandra Rao,
A-21, Manyata Residency,
Arabic College Post,
Bangalore -560 045.
2. Atluri Kireet,
S/o.A.V.Ratnakar,
435, East 79th Street,
Apt 8M, New York, 10075,
Represented by his Power Agent
Atluri Sridevi,
Flat No.D1, 4th Floor,
Door No.5/3, 1st Street,
Avvai Shanmugam Road,
Royapettah, Chennai -600 014.
3. Atluri Naveen,
S/o.A.V.Ratnakar,
Flat No.D1, 4th Floor,
Door No.5/3, 1st Street,
Avvai Shanmugam Road,
Royapettah, Chennai -600 014.
..Respondent(s)
CRP No. 484 of 2026
Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the Order and Decree,
Dated 19/12/2025 made in R.C.A.No.44 of 2024 on the file of IX Small Causes
Court , Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority), confirming the Eviction
Order and Decree dated 08.04.2024 made in R.C.O.P.No.453 of 2017 on the file
of the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai(Rent Controller), by allowing this Civil
Revision Petition and thus render justice.
__________
Page2 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
CMP No. 2695 of 2026
To STAY the operation of Order and Decree dated 19.12.2025
made in R.C.A.No.44 of 2024 on the file of IX Small Causes Court, Chennai
(Rent Control Appellate Authority) confirming the Order and Decree dated
08.04.2024 made in R.C.O.P.No.453 of 2017 on the file of XV Small Causes
Court(Rent Controller) Chennai, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision
Petition and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
CRP No. 484 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): MR.V.Venkatesan
FOR M/S.K.SRI RUDHRA
For Respondent(s): MR.R.PARTHASARATHY, SR.C.
FOR M/S. S.Rekha
FOR R1 TO R3
ORDER
(1) The tenant is the revision petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the concurrent
orders of the Courts below, allowing eviction petition on all three counts
of wilful default in payment of rent, committing acts of waste and
owners’ own use and occupation, the petitioner has filed the above Civil
Revision Petition.
(2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as the tenant and
the landlords.
(3) The demised property is land measuring 6118 sq.ft., with built up area of
10988 sq.ft., located at No.120, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17.
Originally, the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in April 1998, on a
__________
Page3 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
monthly rent of Rs.2 lakhs. The tenant at the time of his induction into
the demised premises, paid a sum of Rs.16 lakhs as interest free security
deposit. According to the landlords, even as per the initial Agreement
between the parties, it was agreed that the rent would be enhanced by
20% of the original rent once in every three years. According to the
landlords, in conformity with the said Agreement, they enhanced the rent
to Rs.2,40,000/-, for a period of three years with effect from 01.04.2001.
The landlords claimed that though the tenant was regular in paying the
rent initially, he defaulted in paying the rent from 2004 onwards. While
so, the tenant, admitting to the arrears of rent to the tune of
Rs.14,62,400/- requested the 1st respondent herein and the father of the
respondents 2 and 3 to adjust the arrears of rent against the advance
amount of Rs.16 lakhs, and prayed for refund of the balance of
Rs.1,37,600/- out of the said amount so as to score off the old Agreement
and enter into a fresh lease. The landlords acceded to the said request and
on 01.01.2005, a fresh Agreement was entered into under which the
tenant agreed to the revision of rent at Rs.2,88,000/- per month [20%
increase over the previous rent of Rs.2,40,000/-] and to pay an interest
free refundable deposit of Rs.17,28,000/-. The landlords further stated
that the rent was again revised with effect from 01.01.2008 to
Rs.3,45,000/- and thereafter, from 01.01.2011 till 31.12.2013, it was
revised to Rs.4,14,720/-. The landlords stated that the increase in rent
__________
Page4 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
was in consonance with the initial Agreement of 20% enhancement once
in every three years. While so, the tenant constructed the 2 nd floor in the
Annexe building and 4th floor in the main building. The landlords
therefore addressed a letter to the tenant on 30.12.2013, directing the
tenant to immediately demolish the unauthorised construction, failing
which, to vacate the property. The landlords stated that while they were
expecting the increase in monthly rent at 20% over and above the agreed
rent of Rs.4,14,720/-, with effect from 01.01.2014, they were surprised to
find that the tenant had unilaterally reduced the rent to Rs.4 lakhs, on the
specious ground that he had put up additional structures in the property
by spending around Rs.1 Crore. Thereafter, there were exchange of
communications and finally, on 11.06.2015, the landlords issued a legal
notice to the tenant directing him to clear the entire arrears of rent and to
restore the building to its original condition, failing which to vacate the
premises, to which the tenant replied on 24.06.2015. Pursuant to the
reply of the tenant, settlement talks were initiated. However, since the
talks failed, the landlords issued a rejoinder on 15.03.2016, calling upon
the tenant to amicably resolve the issue, failing which they threatened
legal action. The landlords further claimed that they required the demised
premises for their own use and occupations, since they proposed to set up
a branch office of their company namely “Narayanpur Power Company
Private Limited” However, the tenant did not accede to the request of the
__________
Page5 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
landlords and therefore they filed the Eviction Petition under Sections
10[2][i], 10[2][iii] and 10[3][a][iii] of the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease
and Rent Control] Act, 1960, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] on the
grounds of wilful default, acts of waste and owners’ use and occupation.
(4) The tenant filed a counter to the eviction petition contending inter alia
that he was inducted under a Lease Agreement dated 04.12.1997. and that
thereafter, another Lease Agreement was entered into on 07.04.1998 with
the first landlord and his brother Mr.A.V.Ratnakar. The tenant admitted
that under the 1998 Agreement, the rent was fixed at Rs.2 lakhs and a
non-refundable advance of Rs.16 lakhs was paid. The tenant denied that
there was any Agreement to increase the monthly rent by 20% once in
three years. The tenant stated that he was regularly paying monthly rent
at Rs.2,40,000/- to the landlords and that there was no wilful default in
payment of rent at any point of time. The tenant further stated that on
19.08.2005, a fresh Lease Agreement was entered into, under which
Rs.17,28,000/- was paid as advance and the rent was fixed at
Rs.2,88,000/-. The tenant denied the allegation that he had
unauthorisedly put up additional constructions. According to the tenant,
the additional constructions were put up during the year 2003 with the
consent of the landlords, who had expressed their inability owing to
financial crisis. The tenant also stated that since no workable solution
materialised out of the meetings held with the landlords, he continued to
__________
Page6 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
pay the monthly rent of Rs.4,14,720/- regularly without any default as per
the Agreement dated 31.01.2011. The tenant further stated that as per the
request of the landlords, he is remitting the monthly rent in two shares,
one part in favour of the first landlord and the other part, in favour of the
landlords 2 and 3. The tenant stated that his Bank Statements would
reveal that from January 2014 to August 2017, excess payments were
made by him to the landlords and that, in all, a sum of Rs.35,26,317/- was
available with the landlords in the form of rental advance of
Rs.17,28,000/- and an excess payment of Rs.17,98,317/-. The tenant
further stated that he was also paying the statutory taxes for the petition
premises. The tenant reiterated that he was regularly paying the monthly
rent of Rs.4,14,720/- as per the Agreement dated 31.01.2011 without any
default and that the same was received by the landlords without any
demur or protest. The tenant disputed the alleged enhancement of rent at
20%, over and above the agreed monthly rent of Rs.4,14,720/- as
untenable and unsustainable and not binding on him. The tenant further
stated that the additional constructions put up by him did not impair the
material value or utility of the building. The tenant specifically stated
that the additional constructions were made with the consent of the
landlords in the year 2003, and contrary to the contentions of the
landlords, the additional constructions infact enhanced the value and
utility of the premises to the benefit of the landlords. The tenant stated
__________
Page7 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
that since the landlords were receiving the monthly rents regularly
subsequent to the construction of additional structures, they were
estopped from pleading acts of waste. The tenant disputed the claim of
the landlords that they required the demised premises for their own use
and occupation for non residential purpose of setting up a Branch Office
of their Company, namely, “Narayanpur Power Company Private
Limited’’, at Chennai. The tenant further stated that the landlords owned
many commercial properties in Chennai and therefore, they were not
entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under the aforesaid
Sections of the Act. The tenant stated that the eviction petition was filed
with an oblique motive to somehow evict it from the demised premises
and that the petition was tainted with mala fide. The tenant therefore
prayed to dismiss the eviction petition.
(5) Before the Rent Control Court, the landlords examined one witness as
PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P25. The tenant examined one witness as
RW1 and marked Exs.R1 to R24.
(6) The Rent Control Court, after framing the necessary issues, found that the
tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent to the landlords
and therefore, he was liable to be evicted under Section 10[2][i] of the
Act. On the issue of eviction on the ground of ‘acts of waste’ under
Section 10[2][ii] of the Act, the learned Rent Controller found that the
tenant had committed ‘acts of waste’ by constructing additional structures
__________
Page8 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
without obtaining the consent of the landlords and that the said
constructions impaired the utility of the building rendering the tenant,
liable to be evicted under Section 10[2][iii] of the Act. On the tenant’s
eviction on the ground of own use and occupation under Section 10[3][a]
[iii] of the Act, the learned Rent Controller, on the basis of the evidence
produced by the landlords, held that the landlords had proved their
entitlement to claim the eviction under the said provision. The learned
Rent Controller, on the basis of the evidence held that the landlords
required the premises for expanding their own business in Chennai and
therefore, held that the tenant was liable to be evicted under Section 10[3]
[a][iii] of the Act. Aggrieved by the fair and decreetal order of the
learned Rent Controller, the tenant filed an appeal in RCA.No.44/2024 on
the file of the learned Judge, IX Small Causes Court, Chennai. The
Lower Appellate Court, on consideration of the entire materials on record
and after framing necessary points for consideration, concurred with the
findings of the learned Rent Controller on all three counts for eviction
and hence, rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the concurrent fair and
decreetal orders of the Courts below, the petitioner has filed the above
Civil Revision Petition.
(7) The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant submitted that in the absence
of any concluded Agreement regarding enhancement of rent at 20% once
in every three years, the Courts below erred in invoking Section 115[f] of
__________
Page9 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
the Indian Evidence Act to hold that the tenant had committed wilful
default. The learned counsel submitted that the Courts below failed to
appreciate that none of the landlords entered the witness box in support of
their case and that the authorised representative, PW1 was not the
competent person to speak about the past transactions and the defaults
allegedly committed prior to 26.08.2017. The learned counsel further
submitted that the Trial Court erred in selectively appreciating the
evidence. The learned counsel elaborating the said submission,
contended that the Courts below while ignoring the vital admissions of
PW1 and PW2 which were in favour of the tenant, erroneously relied on
certain portions of RW1’s evidence and on the basis of such selective
appreciation of evidence, rendered perverse findings, which deserve to be
set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
Courts below failed to appreciate that a huge amount of Rs.35,26,317/-
remained with the landlords as evidenced from Exs.R18 to R24 and
therefore, there was no question of any wilful default. The learned
counsel submitted that the alleged claim of owners’ occupation lacked
bona fides and that, the Courts failed to appreciate Ex.R3 which showed
that the landlords and their family members possessed and were in
occupation of commercial properties in Chennai. The learned counsel
submitted that the burden of proving the bona fide requirement lay on the
landlords and since none of the landlords entered the witness box, the
__________
Page10 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
eviction on that ground, ought to have been rejected. The learned counsel
further submitted that the Courts below failed to appreciate that the
construction of the additional structures commenced in 2003 and was
completed in the year 2004 with the consent of the landlords and that
since 2005, the rent was paid including for the additional construction and
therefore, the claim for eviction on the ground of ‘acts of waste’
damaging or impairing materially the value or utitlity of the building was
untenable. The learned counsel submitted that in any event, in the
absence of any expert evidence to substantiate the plea of Acts of waste,
the Courts below ought to have rejected the same. The learned counsel
submitted that the findings of the Courts below were made on an
erroneous appreciation of the evidence, and therefore they were legally
unsustainable and perverse. The learned counsel therefore prayed that
the revision petition be allowed.
(8) The learned counsel for the respondents / landlords on the other hand
submitted that this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 25 of the
Act, ought not to examine the legality and proprietary of the conclusions
of the Courts below as an Appellate Court. The learned counsel
submitted that in the absence of any perversity in the appreciation of
evidence by the Courts below, the conclusions arrived at by the Courts
below should not be interfered with. The learned counsel submitted that
in the facts of the case and on the basis of the materials on record, the
__________
Page11 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
Courts below had drawn conclusions and therefore, this Court ought not
to embark upon on independent reassessment of the evidence to draw its
own conclusions. The learned counsel submitted that the concurrent
findings of the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence
on record and the legal principles thereof and hence this Civil Revision
Petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
(9) Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record.
(10) Before launching on the merits of the case, it will be useful to refer to
certain judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to the
scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Rent Control Act,
1960. In the case of Smt.Rajbir Kaur and Another vs. S.Chokesiri and
Co., reported in (1989) 1 SCC 19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as
follows:
“43.When the findings of fact recorded by the courts below
are supportable on the evidence on record, the revisional court
must, indeed, be reluctant to embark upon an independent
reassessment of the evidence and to supplant a conclusion of its
own, so long as the evidence on record admitted of and
supported the one reached by the courts below. With respect to
the High Court, we are afraid, the exercise made by it in its
revisional jurisdiction incurs the criticism that the concurrent
finding of fact of the courts below could not be dealt and
supplanted by a different finding arrived at on an independent
reassessment of evidence as was done in this case …..
__________
Page12 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026(11) In the case of Dev Kumar (Died) through Lrs. v. Swaran Lata (Smt) and
others, reported in (1996) 1 SCC 25 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as
follows:
“The jurisdiction of the High Court under Sub Section (5)
of Section 15 of the Act, would entitle the Court to examine the
legality and propriety of a conclusion of the Appellate Authority
and is thus much wider than the revisional jurisdiction under
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But it has to be
exercised subject to the well-known limitations inherent in all
revisional jurisdictions and cannot be equated with an appellate
jurisdiction. Unless there is a perversity in the matter of
appreciation of evidence by the Appellate Authority or unless the
Appellate Authority has arrived at a conclusion which on the
materials, no reasonable man can come, the High Court will not
interfere with the same.”
(12) In the case of Kilburn Electricals Ltd., vs. Madras Pinjrapole reported in2025 SCC OnLine Mad 3038, a learned Judge of this Court held as
follows:
“27….. It is well settled that this Court is not entitled to
reappreciate the evidence as if sitting in appeal. Interference is
warranted only where the findings of the Rent Controller or the
Appellate Authority are unsupported by any legal evidence, or
where the impugned orders suffer from perversity, patent
illegality, or result in manifest injustice. The correct test is not
whether this Court would have arrived at a different conclusion,
but whether the findings of fact are supported by any legal
evidence on record.”__________
Page13 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026(13) In Rajani Manohar Kuntha & Ors. versus Parshuram Chunilal
Kanojiya & Ors. (SLP(C).No.30407 of 2024 dated 02.12.2025), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court sounded a word “caution” while holding that
“microscopic scrutiny as done by the High Court in revisional exercise is
ex facie without jurisdiction and warrants interference in this appeal and
deserves to be set aside”
(14) Keeping the aforesaid judgements in view, let me now consider the issues
raised in this civil revision petition.
(15) The facts are undisputed and hence the same are not traversed to avoid
replication. Suffice it to state that the petitioner in the civil revision
petition is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord, that the landlord
filed the eviction petition on three grounds of wilful default, acts of waste
and own use and occupation. The Courts below on an appreciation of the
entire evidence on record allowed the eviction petition on all three
grounds. Aggrieved by the concurrent decree for eviction passed by the
Courts below, the tenant has filed the above civil revision petition.
(16) The three main issues that arise for consideration in the civil revision
petition are:
1) Whether the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of
rent?
2) Whether there have been acts of waste by the tenant? and
__________
Page14 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
3) Whether the landlords are entitled to eviction of the tenant on the
grounds of own use and occupation?
(17) Whether the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent:
The learned counsel for the tenant contended that the Courts below erred
in not keeping in view the distinction between default and wilful default.
The learned counsel further contended that in the facts of the present case
the default, if any, could not be construed as wilful default. The learned
counsel elaborated the said contention by stating that there was a serious
dispute as to the actual rent payable and therefore, in the absence of any
finding on the actual rent payable by the tenant, the eviction on the
ground of wilful default is unsustainable. The learned counsel further
submitted that the tenant had disputed the periodic increase of rent at
20%, continued to pay the last agreed rent of Rs.4,14,720/-and hence,
there was no wilful default.
(18) The learned counsel for the respondents/landlords on the other hand
submitted that the tenant had deliberately and with supine indifference
failed to pay the rent for the period from 01.01.2014 to 28.02.2017 and
therefore, the Courts below were right in finding that the tenant had
committed wilful default. The learned counsel further submitted that it
was the landlord’s specific case that the rent was periodically enhanced by
20% from 2005 and as on 01.01.2014 the rent payable was Rs.4,97,720/-
per month but, the tenant taking advantage of the absence of any written
__________
Page15 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
agreement, instead of paying the admitted rent of Rs.4,14,720/- as on
31.12.2013, unilaterally reduced it to Rs.4,00,000/- per month, thereby
committing wilful default. The learned counsel for the respondent further
submitted that despite the landlord’s repeated requests through several
communications, the tenant, failed to pay not only the enhanced rent but
also the agreed rent. The learned counsel submitted that upon proper
appreciation of the evidence and by applying the presumption under
Section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court’s below found that
the rent was enhanced periodically and that the tenant committed wilful
default by failing to pay either the enhanced rent or the agreed rent.
(19) Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be appropriate to refer
to few judgments which throw light on how to construe wilful default
under Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, 1960.
(20) The Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the issue as to
when default could be construed as wilful default under Section 10(2) of
the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, the Apex
Court in the case of Chordia Automobiles vs. S.Moosa and others,
reported in (2000) 3 SCC 282, held as follows:
‘’8. Wilful default means an act consciously or deliberately
done with open defiance and intent not to pay the rent….”
(21) In the case of S.Sundaram Pillai and Ors. vs. V.R.Pattabiraman andOrs. reported in (1985) 1 SCC 591, it was held as follows:
__________
Page16 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026“21. Before, however, going into this question further, let
us find out the real meaning and content of the word “wilful” or
the words “wilful default”. In the book A Dictionary of Law by
L.B. Curzon, at page 361 the words “wilful” and “wilful
default” have been defined thus:
“ ‘Wilful’ — deliberate conduct of a person who is a free
agent, knows what he is doing and intends to do what he is
doing.
‘Wilful default’ — Either a consciousness of negligence or
breach of duty, or a recklessness in the performance of a duty.”
22. In other words, “wilful default” would mean a
deliberate and intentional default knowing full well the legal
consequences thereof. In Words and Phrases, Vol. 11-A
(Permanent Edition) at page 268 the word “default” has been
defined as the non-performance of a duty, a failure to perform a
legal duty or an omission to do something required. In Vol. 45 of
Words and Phrases, the word “wilful” has been very clearly
defined thus:
“ ‘Wilful’ — intentional; not incidental or involuntary;
—done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without
justifiable excuse as distinguished from an act done carelessly;
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently;
— in common parlance word ‘wilful’ is used in sense of
intentional, as distinguished from accidental or involuntary.
p. 296—‘Wilful’ refers to act consciously and deliberately done
and signifies course of conduct marked by exercise of volition
rather than which is accidental, negligent or involuntary. ”__________
Page17 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
23. In Vol. III of Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary at p. 2617, the word “wilful” has been defined thus:
“governed by will without yielding to reason or without regard
to reason: obstinately or perversely self-willed.”
24. The word “default” has been defined in Vol. I
of Webster’s Third New International Dictionary at p. 590 thus:
“to fail to fulfil a contract or agreement, to accept a
responsibility; to fail to meet a financial obligation.
25. In Black’s Law Dictionary (4th Edn.), at p. 1773 the
word ‘wilful’ has been defined thus:
“ ‘Wilfulness’ implies an act done intentionally and designedly;
a conscious failure to observe care; conscious; knowing; done
with stubborn purpose, but not with malice.
The word ‘reckless’ as applied to negligence, is the legal
equivalent of “wilful” or ‘wanton’.”
26. Thus, a consensus of the meaning of the words “wilful
default” appears to indicate that default in order to be wilful
must be intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious, with
full knowledge of legal consequences flowing therefrom. Taking
for instance a case where a tenant commits default after default
despite oral demands or reminders and fails to pay the rent
without any just or lawful cause, it cannot be said that he is not
guilty of wilful default because such a course of conduct
manifestly amounts to wilful default as contemplated either by
the Act or by other Acts referred to above.”
(22) From the above judgements it is discerned that all cases of non paymentof rent cannot be branded as wilful default. “Wilful default is committed
__________
Page18 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026only when there is conscious or deliberate defiance and intent not to pay
the rent”.
(23) Let me now examine the facts to find out if the tenant has committed
wilful default in paying the rent to the landlord. I have thoroughly gone
through the evidence on record. The tenant as RW1 in his cross-
examination categorically deposed that the rent was periodically
increased at 20% from 2005 onwards. The relevant portion of the
evidence of the tenant reads as follows:
‘’gpukhzthf;FK:yk ; gj;jp 6y ; 2005 Kjy ; khj thlif
U:/2.88.000 vd;W Fwpg;gpl;Ls;nsd; vd;whYk; mJ 01-01-2005 Kjy;
31-12-2007 tiuapyhd fhyj;jpw;fhdJ vd;why; Mk;/01-01-2008 Kjy;
31-12-2010 tiuf;Fk ; khj thlif U:/3.45.000 vd;why ; Mk;/
gpukhzthf;FK:yk; gj;jp 8y; khj thlifahf U:/4.14.720 brYj;Jtjhf
Fwpg;gpl;Ls;nsd; vd;whYk; mJ 01-01-2011 Kjy; 31-12-2013 tiu
brYj;jpa[s;nshk; vd;why; rhpjhd;/’’
(24) From the evidence of the tenant it is clear that the rent was periodicallyenhanced by 20% from 2005 onwards and that from 01.01.2011 to
31.12.2013, the enhanced rent was fixed at Rs.4,17,720/-. Therefore, for
the period from 01.01.2014, the enhanced rent would be Rs.4,97,720/-
per month. The tenant taking advantage of the absence of a written lease
agreement, stated that he continued to pay the last agreed rent of
Rs.4,14,720/- and therefore there was no wilful default. Let me, digress
__________
Page19 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
here for a moment, to turn to the findings of the Court’s below on this
aspect.
(25) The Courts below, on the basis of the above evidence of the tenant
applied the presumption under Section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act,
and found that the tenant had committed wilful default. The learned
counsel for the tenant submitted that the Court’s below, in the absence of
a written agreement, erred in invoking the presumption under Section
114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act. In my view, the said contention is
meritless, since an agreement is not necessary for applying the legal
presumption. A fitting answer to the tenant’s contention is found in the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumar Exports
versus Sharma Carpets, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 513. While
considering the presumption under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence
Act, the Apex Court held as follows:
“15. Presumptions are devices by use of which the courts
are enabled and entitled to pronounce on an issue
notwithstanding that there is no evidence or insufficient
evidence. Under the Evidence Act all presumptions must come
under one or the other class of the three classes mentioned in the
Act, namely, (1) “may presume” (rebuttable), (2) “shall
presume” (rebuttable), and (3) “conclusive presumptions”
(irrebuttable). The term “presumption” is used to designate an
inference, affirmative or disaffirmative of the existence of a fact,
conveniently called the “presumed fact” drawn by a judicial__________
Page20 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026tribunal, by a process of probable reasoning from some matter
of fact, either judicially noticed or admitted or established by
legal evidence to the satisfaction of the tribunal. Presumption
literally means “taking as true without examination or proof”.
(26) The Courts below on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, and by processof probable reasoning, concluded that the rent had been enhanced
periodically and that, with effect from 01.01.2014, the rent payable was
Rs.4,97,720/-. This court therefore finds that the contention that the
Court’s below erred in invoking the presumption under Section 114(f) is
unacceptable. Further, the Court’s below were well within their
jurisdiction in drawing the requisite presumption. Once such
presumption was drawn, the burden shifted to the tenant to rebute it. In
the absence of any cogent or satisfactory rebuttal this Court finds no
warrant to interfere with concurrent findings of the Court’s below. The
tenant, in his chief-examination at paragraph no.8, stated as follows:
“The Respondent is paying the monthly rent of
Rs.4,14,720/- regularly without any default as per the Agreement
dated 31.01.2011 entered into between the Petitioners and the
Respondent which had not been novated.
The Respondent specifically denies all the allegations made
in para 16 of the Petition and submits that the agreed monthly
rent on and from the date of execution of the agreement dated
31.01.2011 for the petition mentioned property is Rs.4,14,720/-
which amount is being paid by the Respondent from January,
__________
Page21 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
2014 to till this date without any default and the same is received
by the Petitioners without any demur or protest.”
(27) The contention of the tenant that in the absence of a consensus on the
actual rent payable, the payment of Rs.4,00,000/- cannot be construed as
wilful default is untenable and against the evidence on record. The
evidence on record unmistakably establishes that the tenant was fully
aware and also admitted that the landlords had periodically enhanced the
rent at 20%. However, despite the landlords consistent demands for
payment of enhanced rent, the tenant not only failed to pay the enhanced
rent, but also unilaterally reduced the agreed rent. In Ex.P6, dated
07.10.2014, the tenant stated that he had arranged to deposit their SBT
Cheque No.682347 dated 11.09.2014 for Rs.4,00,000/- drawn in favour
of A.Sreekar, first respondent towards his share of rent payable for the
month May and June 2014, for the demised premises. So also under
Ex.P18 to P.23, the tenant paid Rs.4,00,000/- only for the relevant period.
The facts disclose that the tenant in clear disregard of his contractual
obligations, deliberately and designedly reduced the rent unilaterally to
Rs.4,00,000/-. Assuming that the tenant was not liable to pay the
enhanced rent, the failure and the unilateral reduction of the agreed rent,
clearly establishes that the tenant without justifiable cause and
intentionally failed to discharge his obligation to pay the rent.
__________
Page22 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
(28) I find from the evidence on record that there was no dispute at all, leave
alone a bonafide dispute as to the actual rent payable. I find that the act
of the tenant in unilaterally reducing even the agreed rent and deliberately
paying the reduced rent, despite being conscious of the enhanced as well
as agreed rent amounts to wilful default.
(29) The concurrent findings of the Courts below that the tenant committed
wilful default is fully supported by the evidence on record and hence it
suffers from neither perversity nor any legal infirmity warranting
interference. The learned counsel for the tenant submitted that the
landlord was holding Rs.35,26,317/- by way of security deposit and
property tax payment. I am not able to countenance the submission of the
learned counsel, since, as rightly pointed out by the Appellate Court, the
purpose of security deposit is not for the purpose of adjustment of rent,
but for refunding it at the time of vacating the premises and for deducting
the amount for the damages, if any, done to the property. As rightly
pointed out by the lower Appellate Court, the payment of property tax
ought to have been intimated to the landlord and thereafter refund or
adjustment of rent ought to have been claimed. Since there is no proof for
such intimation for refund or adjustment the contention that in view of
excess payment there is no wilful default is rejected.
__________
Page23 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
(30) Whether there have been acts of waste by the tenant :
Admittedly, the tenant has put up an additional floor (fourth floor in the
main building and second floor in the annexe building). According to the
tenant, the additional constructions were made with the consent of the
then landlord, A.V.Ratnakar and A.Sreekar. The tenant further contended
that the construction was commenced in 2003 and completed in 2004 and
the rent was paid inclusive of the additional construction. However, the
landlord disputed the said claim by contending that they had no
knowledge of the additional constructions till the end of 2013. The
learned counsel for the landlord relied on Ex.P4 and P5 in support of the
aforesaid contention.
(31) It is pertinent to note that in his letter dated 07.10.2014 under Ex.P6, the
tenant did not refer to Ex.P4 and P5. If really the tenant had put up the
constructions as early as in 2004, he would have mentioned the same in
Ex.P6. In reply to Ex.P6, the landlord under Ex.P7 dated 21.10.2014
directed the tenant to pay the 20% increased rent from 01.01.2014 and
also additional rent for the two additional constructions put up by him, if
not, to demolish the illegal structures. Again, as a reply to Ex.P4, P5 and
P6, the tenant sent a reply under Ex.P9 dated 12.03.2015, wherein also
there is no mention of the additional constructions put up by him in 2004.
In the said reply, the tenant stated that it had decided to escalate the rent
at 5% and also for the first time conveyed that it had incurred 95.70 lakhs
__________
Page24 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
for constructing the additional structures. From the aforesaid evidence, it
is clear that the tenant had put up the construction without the consent of
the landlord. Even though the tenant in his cross-examination stated that
he put up the additional construction in 2004, with the written consent of
A.V.Ratnakar, the then landlord, he did not produce any written
document. The evidence of the tenant in this regard, reads as follows:
ehd; 2004k; Mz;L uj;dhfh; ,Uf;Fk; nghJ me;j
gzpfis bra;njd;/ uj;dhfhplk; vGj;Jg{h;tkhf mDkjp bgw;W
jhd; fl;Lkhd gzp bra;njd; vd;gij fhl;Ltjw;F VnjDk;
Mtzk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsdh vd;why; ,y;iy/
(32) It is further pertinent to note here that in C.S.No.760 of 2007 filed by thelandlord, the tenant was made as a party and in the schedule of property,
the suit property was described as follows:
All the piece and parcel of 50% Undivided share in land
measuring 2 Grounds 1318 sq.ft. (as per Patta) together with
50% undivided share in Basement, Ground plus three floors
building situate at Old Door No.120, New Door No.24, Gopathi
Narayanaswami Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017
comprised in R.S.No.47, T.S.No.8431, Block No.109,
Thyagarayanagar Village and the land being bounded on the
North by Old No.1 New No.1, Giri Road
South by G.N.Chetty Road
East by Old No.121, New No.22, G.N.Chetty Road
West by Old No.119, New No.26, G.N.Chetty Road__________
Page25 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026(33) The said suit was filed in August 2007. Therefore, it is clear that the
contention of the tenant that additional structures were constructed in
2003 is not true. Be that as it may, it is to be seen if, the additional
structures put up by the tenant amounts to an act of waste entitling the
landlord for eviction on the said ground.
(34) The learned counsel for the tenant submitted that in absence of a finding
as to the date of the alleged additional construction, the eviction petition
ought to have been dismissed. The learned counsel further submitted that
the landlord had failed to prove that the tenant had caused any material
damage impairing the value and utility of the building and therefore,
eviction on the ground of act of waste was erroneous. The learned
counsel relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Krishan Kumar versus Krishna Nath and Others, reported in (2022)
16 SCC 565 in support of his contention.
(35) I have gone through the said judgement and I find that the said judgement
is based on the facts of that case. In the said case, the plaintiff’s own
document Ex.P1, showed that the wall between the two shops existed and
therefore, the Court held that the onus lay on the plaintiff, to establish that
material alteration was made and also that it had been done after the
commencement of the lease. Moreover, the Court found from the recitals
in the lease agreement that the material alteration and addition at the cost
of the tenant therein, was permitted. The said case is therefore
__________
Page26 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
distinguishable with the facts of the present case.
(36) The next question that arises for consideration is whether the additional
constructions put up by the tenant amounts to material impairment or
value and utility of the building under the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of G.Reghunathan versus K.V.Varghese, reported in
(2005) 7 SCC 317 held that, what would constitute material impairment
affecting the value or utility of the building cannot be described or
considered in generalised terms, but, has to be considered on the facts of
each case. The learned counsel for the tenant relying on the judgement of
this Court in the case of M.Karuppanna Gounder Vs. C.Visuvasam and
others, reported in (1998) 1 LW 796 submitted that the tenant was
entitled to make reasonable alterations in the demised premises for the
reasonable use of the property. In the said judgement, the act of the tenant
in putting up asbestos roofing, bathroom and latrine were found to be
constructions not materially impairing the utility and value of the
building. In the said case, the aforesaid constructions were put up since
the landlord had not provided any necessary amenities. In my view, the
aforesaid judgement does not apply to the present case since the facts are
easily distinguishable. The Courts below by correctly applying the legal
principles as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, correctly held
that the impairment of value and utility of the building must be adjudged
from the landlords point of view. By applying correct legal principles and
__________
Page27 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the appellate Court
returned a factual finding that the additional floor would increase the load
on the existing structure and when not done with proper structural
engineering analysis would materially damage the utility of the building.
The Court also found that the fourth floor was constructed without any
approval from the competent authority. On such finding, the lower
appellate Court found that the tenant had committed acts of waste. As
discussed above, the tenant has not taken the consent of the landlord for
putting up additional structures. From exhibits P4, P5 and P6, it is clear
that the illegal additional construction came to the knowledge of the
landlords only in December 2013 and immediately thereafter, the said
letter was issued directing the tenant to demolish the building or vacate
the premises. Under Ex.P4, the demolition of illegal structures was made
a condition precedent for entering into a fresh lease agreement.
Pertinently, in the present case the tenant has not disputed the additional
constructions were put up by him. The construction of an additional floor
in the annexe building and the fourth floor in the main building by its
very nature affects structural stability of the building. As rightly pointed
out by the trial Court, by putting up the additional floors, the load on the
existing structures has increased. It is not the tenants case that he had
taken proper structural engineering advice before constructing the
additional floors. Even the plan approval for constructing the additional
__________
Page28 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
floors is not produced and therefore, it is clear that the said additions were
made in violation of the building rules and by compromising the
structural stability of the building. By putting up the additional
constructions the material value of the building may have increased, but,
the utility value has definitely diminished. Moreover, it is to be noted that
it is not open to the tenant to deal with the premises as he pleases and the
very nature of the construction put up by him clearly establishes that the
additions are not trivial in nature, but ones that would require an expert
opinion on the structural stability of the building. Assuming that the
additions have been made for the tenant’s business purposes, the same is
irrelevant, since the material alterations will have to be viewed from the
point of view of the landlord and not tenant. I am therefore of the view
that the findings of the Courts below on this aspect also do not call for
any interference.
(37) Whether the landlords are entitled to eviction of the tenant on the
grounds of own use and occupation:
The learned counsel for the landlord submitted that they needed the
demised premises to establish a branch of their own business viz.
Narayana Power Company Private Limited, in which, the first respondent
and his wife (PW1) are Directors and therefore they sought for eviction
on the ground of own occupation also. The first petitioner is running a
company in the name and style of Narayana Power Company Limited,
__________
Page29 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026which is engaged in renewable energy related business. The business is
primarily situated in Bangalore and therefore, the landlords stated that
they required the premises for establishing a branch office in Chennai. To
establish that the present company i.e. Narayanpur Power Company
Private Limited, is in sound financial health, the landlords filed Ex.P21,
P22 and P23. The landlords also filed income tax returns under Ex.P17,
P17 and P18, to establish the financial position of the company. Ex.P24
board resolution was also filed in support of their claim for eviction. The
tenant disputed the landlords’ claim for own use on the ground that the
landlords possess various other properties in Chennai. The tenant relied
on Ex.R3 to contend that the landlords had two other properties in
Chennai, one of which, is a fourth floor building in Anna Salai. The other
one is the petition premises. The landlords on the other hand contended
that the property in Anna Salai, exclusively belongs to their mother and in
the petition premises, the first respondent and the respondents 2 and 3
have only 50% share each. The Courts below, on appreciation of the
entire evidence and by applying the correct legal principles, as enunciated
in the judgement of this Court in the case of The Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu Handloom Weavers’ Cooperative Society Ltd., Thanjavur
and others vs. V.Natarajan, reported in 2010 (6) CTC 454, found that the
claim of the landlords for the demised premises was bona fide.
__________
Page30 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026(38) The Courts below on the basis of the evidence on record found that the
claim of the landlords was bona fide and that it was not an indirect
attempt to evict the tenant. The learned counsel for the tenant submitted
that the first landlord had 50% share in the property and the landlords 2
and 3 remaining 50% share and therefore, in the absence of the consent of
the second and third landlords, the first landlords claim for own
occupation is untenable. The very fact that the landlords 2 and 3 joined
with the first landlord to file the eviction petition would itself establish
that they had impliedly consented to the running of the business in the
demised property by the first landlord and his wife. The learned counsel
for the tenant relied on the judgement of this Court in Kathan vs. Scaw
Manak Chand Shohaji, reported in (2004) 1 CTC 668 and submitted that
the bona fide requirement does not mean mere desire but, genuine and
urgent need for the premises. It is true that the requirement of the
premises should not be on mere desire. However, based on the facts of
the case the Court’s below have returned concurrent findings of fact that
the requirement of the landlords for own use and occupation was bona
fide. I find that the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the
requirement of the landlords was genuine and bona fide is based on
proper appreciation of the facts and law and therefore I find no
compelling reasons to interfere with the same. Hence, the finding of the
__________
Page31 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026Courts below on the ground of own use and occupation is not interfered
with.
(39) In light of the above discussions, I find absolutely no merit in the civil
revision petition and hence, the same is dismissed. The tenant shall vacate
and hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
08-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AP
To
1.The XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The XIX Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
__________
Page32 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 484 of 2026
N.MALA J.
AP
Order in
CRP No. 484 of 2026
AND
CMP NO. 2695 OF 2026
08-07-2026
__________
Page33 of 33
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
