Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1159 (MAD)

Chandran & Another v. Gopalakrishnan

2005-07-25

S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN

body2005
Judgment :- The revision petitioners in all the revision petitions are the landlords. These revisions are directed against the orders of dismissal of R.C.O.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 1994 on the file of the Rent Control (District Munsif) Court, Gobichettipalayam, as per orders dated 6.8.1996, filed for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and also on the ground of denial of title, as confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Gobichettipalayam in R.C.A.Nos.3 to 5 of 1996, as per judgments dated 19.8.1997. 2. Though all the revision petitions arise out of separate judgments, since the landlords in all these revision petitions are one and the same and similar question of law and fact arises, all these revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The revision petitioners/landlords filed R.C.O.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 1994 against the respondents/tenants for eviction from the petition premises. These Rent Control Original Petitions were resisted by the respondents/tenants in the counters stating that the rent payable is only 50/-, 100/- and 125/- per month and not Rs.200/-, 350/- and Rs.1,000/- per month respectively as claimed by the revision petitioners/landlords and that the landlords alone are not entitled to the petition premises let out to the tenants but to one Rajendran also in all these Rent Control Original Petitions. The said Rajendran has also claimed title, and in fact, as per the direction of his father, Thiruvengadam, under whom, the respondents/tenants took tenancy in respect of the petition premises, the rent is paid to the said Rajendran, on the demise of the said Thiruvengadam. 4. Before the learned Rent Controller, the landlords examined the first petitioner as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-8 in all the Rent Control Original Petitions. No evidence was adduced either oral or documentary on the side of the tenant in all the Rent Control Original Petitions. 5. 4. Before the learned Rent Controller, the landlords examined the first petitioner as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-8 in all the Rent Control Original Petitions. No evidence was adduced either oral or documentary on the side of the tenant in all the Rent Control Original Petitions. 5. The learned Rent Controller, considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, recorded findings accepting the contentions of the respondents/tenants in all the petitions that the revision petitioners/landlords alone are not entitled to the petition premises let out to the respondents/tenants in all the petitions and that rents had been paid to the said Rajendran, the son born to the above said Thiruvengadam, through his second wife Sundarambal, and as such, the denial of title in respect of the petition premises by the respondents/tenants is bona fide. The learned Rent Controller has also found that the respondents/tenants in these Rent Control Original Petitions, subject matter of these revision petitions have not committed wilful default in paying the rent as claimed by the revision petitioners/landlords. 6. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority also not recorded findings with regard to the quantum of rent and dismissed all the Rent Control Appeals confirming the findings of the learned Rent Controller in dismissing the Rent Control Original Petitions. Hence, these Revision Petitions. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and also the learned counsel for the respondents in all these revision petitions. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/landlords in all these revision petitions submitted that Govinda Naicker, the grandfather of the landlords to whom the petition premises belonged to, executed a Will, which is marked as Ex.P-6 dated 11.8.1952, in favour of his three sons, giving life interest to them and the vested interest to his grandsons born through them. In the partition held between Thiruvengadam and his brothers, who are sons of Govinda Naicker, the petition premises was allotted to Thiruvengadam and as such, he has vested interest and therefore, it is only the revision petitioners/landlords who are sons of Thiruvengadam have got right and title to the petition premises, and the revision petitioners/landlords alone, being the owners, are entitled to claim rent from the respondents/tenants. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that since the said Rajendran, who is an illegitimate son born to Thiruvengadam, through his concubine Sundarambal, has no right to claim any title in the petition premises, the denial of title with respect to the petition premises by the respondents/tenants is without bona fide. He has also argued that admittedly, rent was not paid to the revision petitioners/landlords but only to the said Rajendran, and therefore, eviction of the respondents/tenants is to be ordered on both the said grounds. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/tenants in all the revision petitions vehemently contended that the revision petitioners/landlords have not established from the evidence of P.W.1/1st petitioner in all the Rent Control Original Petitions that they have got title to the petition premises. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, inasmuch as rival claim is made by the said Rajendran with regard to ownership of the petition premises, to whom the rent is being paid as per the Will executed by the deceased Thiruvengadam, the respondents/tenants in all the revision petitions have not committed default much less wilful default in payment of rent to the revision petitioners/landlords. 10. Admittedly, the petition premises, subject matter of the Civil Revision Petitions belonged to one Govinda Naicker, the paternal grandfather of the revision revision petitioners/landlords and as per the Will Ex.P-6 dated 11.8.1952, life interest was given to his three sons, among whom, the said Thiruvengadam, is the second son, and the vested interest was given to the grandsons born to the said Thiruvengadam. According to the revision petitioners, as per the oral partition entered into among the three sons, the petition premises was allotted to the said Thiruvengadam and has been in enjoyment of the said premises, under whom the respondents became tenants. 11. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that though the case put-forth by the respondents/tenants that even during the life time of the said Thiruvengadam, as directed by him, the rents for the petition premises have been paid to the said Rajendran, such case has not been proved. 11. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that though the case put-forth by the respondents/tenants that even during the life time of the said Thiruvengadam, as directed by him, the rents for the petition premises have been paid to the said Rajendran, such case has not been proved. Further, the tenants, viz., the respondents herein have not chosen to examine the said Rajendran and also not marked rental receipts issued by Rajendran to prove the case set up by the respondents/tenants that even during the life time of the said Thiruvengadam, they have been paying rent to the said Rajendran, born to him through his concubine Sundarambal, as instructed by him and that even after his death the rent is paid to the said Rajendran. It follows, the denial of title in respect of the petition premises to the revision petitioners/landlords by the respondents/tenants in all the revision petitions is mala fide. 12. Admittedly, the respondents/tenants have not paid the rent to the revision petitioners/landlords and only to Rajendran, the son born to Thiruvengadam through his concubine Sundarambal. Therefore, the revision petitioners/landlords have clearly established that the tenants, viz., the respondents herein committed wilful default in payment of rent to the petition premises and that the denial of title to the revision petitioners/landlords in respect of the petition premises is without bona fide. That be so, the learned Rent Controller and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority committed error in not recording proper finding on that aspect and therefore, the judgments of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, which are challenged in these revision petitions, are liable to be set aside. 13. In the result, all the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The judgments and decrees dated 19.8.1997 in R.C.A.Nos.3 to 5 of 1996 passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Gobichettipalayam, are set aside. R.C.O.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 1994 on the file of the Rent Control (District Munsif) Court, Gobichettipalayam are allowed. The respondents/tenants in all the revision petitions are directed to vacate the petition premises and hand over the same to the revision petitioners/landlords. No costs.