TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y has been vacated. The affidavit also does not reveal as to when the daughter of the appellant has shifted. No proof has been provided regarding the posting of the husband of the appellant s daughter at Chennai. However, it is clear from the pleadings of the non-petitioner/appellant that the rental value of the aforesaid property is ₹ 65,000/- per month. This fact was not revealed by the appellants when the matter was heard by this Tribunal on 19.06.2017, even though the property at serial no.(ii) was given on rent w.e.f. 01.04.2017. In the light of the admission of the rental value of the said property per month, without prejudice, the appellant Smt. Poonguzhali is directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 65,000/- per month with the respondent w.e.f. the date of confirmation of Provisional Attachment Order as user and occupation charges after deducting the amount already paid in terms of the interim order dated 19.06.2017. The appellant Smt. Poonguzhali is allowed eight weeks time to pay the arrears from the date of confirmation order. The current and future rents shall be deposited by the appellant Smt. Poonguzhali before 7th of next month - Subject to above, the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd properties Nos. 2, 3 4 are self-occupied. The Respondent No.1 herein filed a letter dated 01.07.2017 before the Petitioner herein stating that the mentioning of property no.1 as let out on rent is a mistake and that the said property is not actually let out on rent and is selfoccupied during his visits to Chennai. He further stated that Sl. No. 2 which has been mentioned before the Tribunal as self-occupied is actually let out on rent. The Respondent enclosed the rental agreement in respect of property No. 2 which on perusal is seen that the said property has been let out on a monthly rent of ₹ 55,000/- to Mrs. V.Yamini of Chennai. It is also noticed that Respondent-1 had received a sum of ₹ 3,00,000/- as security deposit for letting out the said property. The respondent-1 also enclosed copy of the rental agreement in respect of property at Sl. No. 4 above which evidences letting out the said property to M/s. Karthikeya Trading Pvt. Ltd. on a monthly rent of ₹ 65,000/-. The security deposit received with regard to the said property is also ₹ 3,00,000/-. 3. In response to above application, the appellants/non-petitioners have submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mily as her husband is taking up a posting in Chennai. This property has been acquired with the help of a loan from HDFC for ₹ 2.00 Crores and we are paying a monthly EMI of ₹ 2.39 Lacs / month . Rent Collected previously Deposited with ED Paid EMI For loan availed ₹ 65,000/- ₹ 15,000/- ₹ 2,39,594/- It is respectfully submitted that the appellant may be exempt from paying the difference of the rent received and the amount paid to the ED, as already we are paying a much bigger sum to HDFC Bank ₹ 2.39 Lacs / month as Home Loan EMI and the property is attached with ED. 4. The appellants/non-petitioners have filed copy of unregistered rental agreement dated 01.11.2016 executed between Mr. S. Shankarnarayanan and Mrs. V.Yamini W/o Mr. K. Vishnu in respect of Apartment No. CCE-151, (Fifteenth floor), E Block, DLF Commander s Court No.49 (Old No.22), Ethiraj Salai, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the rent agreement dated 01.04.2017, were filed in the Tribunal on 24.07.2017 and 25.07.2017 respectively. The property of Mr. S. Shankarnarayanan has been rented out for a sum of ₹ 55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand only) per month and a security deposit of ₹ 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) was taken from the tenant. Whereas in the case of the property of Mrs. S.Poonguzhali W/of Mr. P.K.M. Selvam, the property was rented out for a sum of ₹ 65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand only) per month and as security deposit of ₹ 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) was taken from the tenant. 8. It appears from the records that neither in the stay applications nor in the appeal memo there is any specific mention about the renting out of the aforesaid two properties to Mrs. V. Yamini and M/s. Karthikeya Trading Private Limited. Rather, it is mentioned in the order dated 19.06.2017 that the learned counsel for the appellants made statement that the properties at Serial No.1 5, have been rented out. As per the list of properties reflected in the said order, the properties at Serial No.1 5 are different from the aforesaid t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. The petitioner/respondent has filed the review application only with respect to two properties mentioned below: (i) Residential Flat viz., Flat No.CCE-151, DLF Commanders Court, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai 600 008. (ii) Residential Flat viz., Flat No.CCE-141, DLF Commanders Court, Ethiraj Salai, Chennai 600 008. 13. The first property is owned by Mr. S. Shankarnarayanan, the appellant in appeal no.FPA-PMLA-1814/CHN/2017 and is receiving a sum of ₹ 55,000/- as rent per month from the tenant. Whereas, the second property is owned by Mrs. Poonguzhali, wife of Mr. P.K.M. Selvam the appellant in appeal no.FPA-PMLA-1817/CHN/2017 and was receiving a sum of ₹ 65,000/- as rent per month from the tenant. The aforesaid two appellants executed the rent agreements on 01.11.2016 and 01.04.2017 respectively. Both the agreements were prior to passing of the interim order dated 19.06.2017 but they did not reveal the aforesaid facts of renting out the properties, execution of rent agreements, the amount of rent received and the parties to whom the properties have been rented out. I have considered the pleadings of both the partie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adings of the non-petitioner/appellant that the rental value of the aforesaid property is ₹ 65,000/- per month. This fact was not revealed by the appellants when the matter was heard by this Tribunal on 19.06.2017, even though the property at serial no.(ii) was given on rent w.e.f. 01.04.2017. 16. In the light of the admission of the rental value of the said property per month, without prejudice, the appellant Smt. Poonguzhali is directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 65,000/- per month with the respondent w.e.f. the date of confirmation of Provisional Attachment Order as user and occupation charges after deducting the amount already paid in terms of the interim order dated 19.06.2017. The appellant Smt. Poonguzhali is allowed eight weeks time to pay the arrears from the date of confirmation order. The current and future rents shall be deposited by the appellant Smt. Poonguzhali before 7th of next month. 17. Subject to above, the respondent shall not take any coercive action in view of the notice issued on 09.06.2017 under Section 8(4) of PMLA, 2002. 18. Accordingly the application filed by the petitioner/respondent is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
