Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 901 (MAD)

G. Janakiraman v. G. P. Savithri & Others

2004-07-15

V.KANAGARAJ

body2004
Judgment :- Both the above Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the fair and decretal orders dated 4.12.2003 respectively made in C.M.P.Nos. 657 of 2002 and 283 of 2002 in R.C.A.No.145 of 1997 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VIII Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both and perused the materials placed on record. 3. Tracing the history of the above Civil Revision Petitions having come to be filed, it comes to be known that the second respondent herein, the landlady has filed the R.C.O.P.No.2467 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Controller (The Court of Small Causes) Madras under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(a) and 10(2)(vii) of the Tamil Nadu (Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the petitioner herein and six others for eviction and for a direction to the respondents to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the petition property to the petitioner on two grounds i.e. (i) wilful default and (ii) subletting the petition mentioned property; that the said R.C.O.P. was dismissed, against which the landlady has preferred R.C.A.No.145 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (The Court of Small Causes) Madras; that pending the said R.C.A., the 2nd respondent herein, the landlady, has filed a petition in C.M.P.No.283 of 2002 praying to implead Tmt.G.P.Savithiri, as party to the above appeal; that the said Savithiri who is a third party to the proceeding has also filed a petition to implead herself as second appellant in the above R.C.A.; that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has ultimately allowed the said petitions. It is only testifying the validity of the said fair and decretal order the petitioner herein has come forward to file both the above Civil Revision Petitions on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of revisions. 4. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner in both the revision petitions would submit that the R.C.O.P. filed by the landlady has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, against which she preferred appeal in R.C.A.No.145 of 1997; that pending R.C.A. two Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed one by the landlady and the other by a third party viz. G.P.Savithiri praying to implead the said G.P.Savithiri as a party to the R.C.A. proceeding; that both the above Miscellaneous Petitions have been allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and hence both the above Civil Revision Petitions. 5. The learned counsel would further submit that the Rent Controller has observed that the relationship of landlady-tenant is not in existence; that the tenant is one of the co-owners, based on which a Will has been probated in favour of Kanakavalli; that grant of probate is not the source of title; that Partition suit filed by the brothers of the so called landlady is pending; that she says that she sold the property to one Savithiri the wife of her another brother on 1.10.2001 based on an agreement of sale dated 17.9.1986, thus after a lapse of 15 years making it known to the world that the brother’s wife purchased the petition property. 6. The learned counsel would further submit that even after the sale an initial cause of action arising that the petitioner in Civil Revision Petition is inducted into possession, deposited the rent into Court as one of the co-owners; that there was no clause to the effect that the litigation is pending and in spite of it the land has been sold; that the R.C.O.P. is of the year 1993; that according to the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in Mrs.DHANLAXSMI G.SHAH v. Miss.SUSHILA SHIV PRASAD MASURAKIR AND OTHERS (1980)I SUPREME COURT CASES 596) ”If at all any right is reserved in favour of the first defendant it should be spelt out from the sale deed which has not been produced”. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 would dwell on the facts as it has been put forth before the lower court without pleading any new law on the subject and tracing of the same will only be a repetition of the facts already traced and therefore, it is desirable to pass orders in consideration of the materials already made available on record. 8. 8. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 with no appearance for the respondents 3 to 8, what could be assessed is that it was landlady’s petition for eviction on grounds of wilful default and subletting and the R.C.O.P. which has been dismissed on both grounds, resulting in filing of the R.C.A. by the landlady before the Rent Control Appellate Authority where two Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed for impleading one and the same person as a party in the R.C.A. and the same having been allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, aggrieved, the tenant has come forward to file both the above Civil Revision Petitions. 9. A careful perusal of the lower Court order would show that Kanakavalli, the landlady has sold the petition mentioned properties in favour of one Savithiri as per the registered sale deed dated 1.10.2001 the copy of which has been produced, thus the said Savithiri having become the full-fledged owner impleaded her as a party and hence these petitions have been filed. Since the lower Court is convinced of the reasons to the extent that the present owner being Savithiri it is only reasonable on the part of the court to implead her as a party to the proceeding and hence had allowed both the said applications. 10. The moment the parties are impleaded for some reason or other it does not mean that the newly impleaded party should get the relief in the main petition or appeal and it depends on the parties for establishing their respective rights. 10. The moment the parties are impleaded for some reason or other it does not mean that the newly impleaded party should get the relief in the main petition or appeal and it depends on the parties for establishing their respective rights. Courts are advised to be liberal in allowing such petitions for impleading the parties unless the Court is of the view that such an impleadment is absolutely not necessary and therefore, since the lower Court is convinced of the fact that the said Savithiri being the subsequent purchaser of the properties of Kanagavalli, it is only reasonable on the part of the court to implead her as a party to the proceeding and the said reasons assigned on the part of the Rent Control Appellate Authority since being on the right expectations of law, there is nothing wrong in the Rent Control Appellate Authority having allowed both the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions and hence the following order: In result, (i) for the foregoing reasons, both the above Civil Revision Petitions do not merit acceptance and they are dismissed; (ii) the fair and decretal order dated 4.12.2003 respectively made in C.M.P.Nos. 657 of 2002 and 283 of 2002 in R.C.A.No.145 of 1997 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority VIII Judge, Small Causes Court), Chennai is confirmed; (iii) however, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs; (iv) consequently, C.M.P.No.1969 of 2004 is also dismissed.