Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 674 (MAD)

E. Sundarrajan v. B. Kanchanamala

2006-03-09

M.JAICHANDREN

body2006
Judgment :- (PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Judgment and decree of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai on 17.09.2005 in R.C.A.No.951 of 2002 which was preferred against the Judgment and decree passed by the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes Court, Chennai on 01.11.2002 in RCOP.No.596 of 1991.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Judgment and degree of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai on 1 7.09.2005 in R.C.A.No.951 of 2002 which was preferred against the Judgment and decree passed by the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes Court, Chennai on 01.11.2002 in RCOP.No.596 of 1991. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is running a business at No.63, R.K.Mutt Road, Chennai, for more than 12 years and he has been paying a monthly rent of Rs.80/- to the respondent without obtaining any receipt for the said payment. It is his case that he and one Mr.V.Devaraj were tenants of the erstwhile owner of the property in question. He states that due to the illness of Mr.V.Devaraj, the petitioner has been running the shop in the premises which is the subject matter of the dispute. He also states that the respondent, who is the subsequent purchaser of the petition property knew about his occupation of the premises and that he was running the business in that premises . The petitioner also states that he had filed a Civil Suit OS.No.6058 of 2001 pending before the XIV Assistant Judge City Civil Court, Chennai. He further states that the RCOP.No.596 of 1991 and EP. No.279 of 1999 filed by the respondent were decided exparte and no chance had been given to the petitioner in those proceedings. He claims that he can be evicted from the petition premises by the respondent only by following the due process of law. Further, the petitioner states that he had taken steps to deposit the rent in the court in RCOP.No.69 of 2002 before XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, which was disposed of on 30.12.2002 and the petitioner had preferred an appeal under RCA.SR.No.23021 of 2005 with an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4. Further, the petitioner states that he had taken steps to deposit the rent in the court in RCOP.No.69 of 2002 before XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, which was disposed of on 30.12.2002 and the petitioner had preferred an appeal under RCA.SR.No.23021 of 2005 with an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 4. The petitioner also states that huge investment has been made for putting up the super-structure in the petition premises and he has been paying property tax and the electricity card stands in his name. He also states that he has been issued with a certificate by the Commercial Department, to run the business in the respondent's premises. 5. On the contrary, it is the case of the respondent who has filed a counter affidavit, that she had originally filed RCOP.No.596 of 1991 for eviction on the ground of wilful default and also on other grounds as against one Mr.V.Devaraj and she further states that eventhough Mr.Devaraj had filed a counter, he did not contest the proceedings and an exparte order was passed against him, in the above said RCOP. When she had filed an execution petition to execute the decree, the said Mr.Devaraj took steps to set aside the decree passed against him and after enquiry the learned Rent Controller was pleased to dismiss the same. Challenging the said order, Mr.Devaraj had filed an appeal in RCA.No.509 of 2000 before the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. After hearing the arguments adduced on behalf of the parties, the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller. 6. It is also the case of the respondent that Mr. Devaraj had filed his counter in the Execution Proceedings and after enquiry the learned X Judge Small Causes Court, Chennai was pleased to order delivery of possession. It is also stated by the respondent that when she had gone to execute the warrant of delivery along with the Amin, the present revision petitioner obstructed the delivery and the Bailiff noted the obstruction and so she had to file M.P.No.582 of 2001 in the said execution proceedings to remove the obstruction that has been caused by the present revision petitioner. 7. 7. It is also stated by the respondent that the Rent controller was pleased to allow the petition filed by the respondent for removal of obstruction, against which the petitioner herein had filed RCA.No.951 of 2002 before the appellate Court which was also rightly dismissed on merits confirming the order of the Rent Controller against which the present revision petition has been filed. 8. The respondent also states that pending execution proceedings the revision petitioner herein filed a petition under section 8 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18/1960 as amended by Act 23/1973, (herein after referred to as the "Act") for direction to deposit rent alleging that the respondent had refused to accept the rent. After counter was filed by the respondent and after elaborate enquiry, the petition was dismissed holding that the petitioner is not a tenant under this respondent. The said order has become final and no appeal has been filed till date. It is also the case of the respondent that the petitioner in the Civil Revision petition is neither a tenant under the respondent nor he is occupying the premises on his own. The petitioner has filed a Civil Suit OS.No.6058 of 2001 before the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for a declaration to declare his status as a tenant and the present stage of the said suit is not known to the respondent. The respondent further states that the petitioner is a trespasser and is squatting on her property and thereby obstructing her from executing the lawful decree, which has been passed by the court below and affirmed by the appellate Court. 9. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Chennai dated 17.09.2005 in R.C.A.No.951 of 2002, it is found that R.C.O.P.No.596 of 1991 had been filed by the respondent/ landlady against the tenant one Mr.Devaraj under sections 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It is further seen that the Rent Controller after enquiry had allowed the RCOP and ordered eviction of the t enant. The landlady, who is the respondent in the present Civil Revision Petition, had filed E.P.No.279 of 1999 for delivery of vacant possession of the petition premises. It is further seen that the Rent Controller after enquiry had allowed the RCOP and ordered eviction of the t enant. The landlady, who is the respondent in the present Civil Revision Petition, had filed E.P.No.279 of 1999 for delivery of vacant possession of the petition premises. While executing, the delivery warrant, the present petitioner had obstructed the delivery of possession and hence the landlady/respondent had filed M.P.No.582 of 2001 under Order 21 Rule 97 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure to remove the obstructor and effect the warrant of delivery of possession in E.P.No.279 of 1999. The said petition was resisted by the petitioner herein. After hearing both the parties, the learned Rent Controller had allowed the application against which the obstructor in the Rent Control Petition, the present petitioner had filed M.P.No.829 of 2005 to receive additional documents on his side which was allowed and the documents were marked in favour of the petitioner. 10. The case of the petitioner in the appeal was that the original tenant Mr.V.Devaraj had let out the petition premises in the year 19 90 and thereafter, the petitioner was recognised and attorned the tenancy in favour of the respondent/landlady and only on the instruction of the respondent / landlady the petitioner had carried out repairs to the premises by incurring huge expenditure. The appellant had filed documents relating the Property tax, Electricity deposit receipt and Consumption charges card and receipt for other incidental expenses for development of the property. He had further submitted that having been recognised by the respondent as her tenant in the petition premises and having permitted the tenant to put up the superstructure and having allowed to pay taxes for the building, now the respondent / landlady, in collusion with the erstwhile tenant, had obtained a false decree and sought for execution of the decree against the lawful tenant, who is the petitioner herein. 11. The Appellate Authority has found that the documents filed by petitioner are not relevant to establish the jural relationship or privity of contract between the landlord and the tenant to prove that the petitioner was the tenant. Further, it was held that there was no documentary evidence such as lease agreement, or rental receipts or letter of permission to carry out repairs to prove himself as a tenant, of the premises under the respondent. Further, it was held that there was no documentary evidence such as lease agreement, or rental receipts or letter of permission to carry out repairs to prove himself as a tenant, of the premises under the respondent. Further, no document, has been produced by the petitioner regarding attornment of the tenancy by the respondent nor for payment of rent. He has also found that the original tenant Mr.Devaraj contested in the R.C.O.P. Since his defence was rejected, he had initiated RCA which was also dismissed. Therefore, he had initiated the present revision petition to cause obstruction for delivery of possession of the petition premises to the respondent. It was also found by the Appellate Authority that the R.C.O.P. No. 69 of 2002, filed by the petitioner herein under Section 8 (5) of the 'Act' for deposit of rent for the petition premises in the court was dismissed on the finding that there was no jural relationship of landlady and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent herein. Against the said order, no appeal had been preferred and therefore, the petitioner had not filed any proof to prove his theory of tenancy as well as his assertion that he is in lawful possession of the petition premises. On that basis, it was held that the petitioner was rightly considered as an obstructor and therefore, the removal of obstruction order was passed. 12. Based on the above reasonings, the Appellate Authority had confirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 01.11.2002, passed in MP.No.582 of 2001 in EP.No.279 of 1999 in RCOP.No.596 of 1991. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on analysing the rival contentions and on perusing the documents filed, it is clear that the petitioner has neither established his status as a tenant under the respondent nor the attornment of the tenancy by the respondent to substantiate his claims. Therefore, this court finds that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Authority in RCA.No.951 of 2002, dated 17.09.2005,. Therefore, as this court does not find any reason to interfere with the said order, the Civil Revision petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.