Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2197 (MAD)

M. Vajravelu v. V. Balasundaram

2010-05-19

M.VENUGOPAL

body2010
Judgment :- The Civil Revision petitioner/Respondent/Tenant has projected the civil revision petition as against the order dated 20.7.2006 in R.C.A.No.44 of 2006 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 2. The Learned Appellate Authority, viz., The II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore while passing orders in R.C.A.No.44 of 2006 on 20.7.2006 had among other things opined that "The Respondent/Landlord had proved that the Revision petitioner was a sub-tenant under the Respondents father Venkitasamy and he was residing in the house on payment of rent and that he had also not duly paid the rent to the Respondent/Landlord and his family members and thereby committed wilful default" and consequently allowed the appeal. 3. Being aggrieved against the order of eviction dated 20.7.2006 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority viz., the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in R.C.A.No.44 of 2006, the petitioner/Tenant has filed this revision before this court. 4. The point that arises for determination in this civil revision petition is that i. Whether the order of the Learned Rent Control Appellate Authority viz., the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in R.C.A.No.44 of 2006 in allowing the appeal filed by the Respondent/Landlord is correct in the eye of law? Finding:- According to the learned counsel for the Revision petitioner/Tenant, the Respondent/Landlord took a plea that the petition mentioned property was originally allotted to his father Venkitasamy by the Labour Department Authority by means of an Allotment order bearing No.1300 of 1965 dated 7.4.1965 and after obtaining the said allotment order the Respondent/Landlords father executed valid agreement for accepting the allotment of the petition mentioned property and paid the monthly Rent of Rs.15/- till 1989 and that the allotted house became absolute property after 20 years to the original Allottee or his Legal heirs. 5. 5. It is the further contention on the side of Revision petitioner/Tenant that in the main Rent Control Original Petition, the Respondent/Landlord had stated that his father Venkitasamy leased out petition mentioned property to the revision petitioner in 1970 on a monthly rent of Rs.15/- and no advance was demanded by the Respondent/Landlords father and that the Revision petitioner/Tenant was irregular in paying the monthly rent and after the death of the Respondent/Landlords father, the Revision petitioner/Tenant had not paid any rent and that rent was due from 1998 to till date and after that the Respondent/Landlord being the chief tenant of the demised premises is entitled to evict the Revision petitioner/Tenant from the petition mentioned property. 6. Continuing further, it is the case of the Revision petitioner/Tenant that he and the Respondent/Landlords father were employees of M/s. Radhakrishna Mills and that the Labour Department Authorities allotted the petition mentioned property to the Respondents father Venkitasamy and since he declined to accept the same had not executed an agreement by accepting the said allotment. Also he took possession of the house from the said Respondent/Landlords father Venkitasamy (employee of the Radhakrishna Mills) and the mill management started deducting the Rent from his salary and paid the same to the concerned Authority. 7. Advancing his arguments, the Learned counsel for the Revision petitioner/Tenant submits that the Respondent/Landlords father Venkitasamy without taking possession of the house or executing any agreement in pursuance of the allotment order wrote a letter to the Labour Department on 17.01.1966 mentioned that they had own house at Coimbatore town and since the allotted house was very small, he was not interested to keep the demised premises allotted to him and after that the Respondents father stated in the said letter that the Revision petitioner/Tenant took possession of the premises and requested the authority to allot the said house to the revision petitioner and expressed his no objection. 8. Only under such arrangement right from 1966, the Revision petitioner/Tenant was living in the petition mentioned premises as a chief Tenant and was paying the rent to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 9. 8. Only under such arrangement right from 1966, the Revision petitioner/Tenant was living in the petition mentioned premises as a chief Tenant and was paying the rent to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 9. The Learned Counsel for the Revision petitioner/Tenant submits that in the present case on hand, there is no Landlord-Tenant relationship between the Respondent/Landlord and the Revision petitioner and as a matter of fact, the Revision petitioner/Tenant had not paid any Rent to the Respondent/Landlord at any point of time and therefore, the Learned Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain the Rent Control original petition and the said petition was not maintainable in law for not adding the Labour Department and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board as parties to the said proceedings. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Tenant cites the decision in The Official Receiver -vs- R.Annamalai & 2 Others 1996 (II) CTC 536 , wherein it is held that "The Rent Controller has no power to decide who is the owner of property and he can only decide as to whether the denial of title of Landlord is bona fide or not?" 11. He also relies on the decision of A.V.G.P.Chettiar and Sons & Others Vs. T.Palanisamy Gounder (2002 (2) CTC 628) wherein it is held that the definition of Landlord means as follows: "It enables persons who are not owners to seek eviction of tenant under Act. It does not mean that person who had claimed to be landlord in capacity of owner can seek to maintain eviction petition, when his title is denied by relying upon enabling provision that he is authorised to collected rent. Such plea no supported by pleadings." 12. In the counter to the main Rent Control original petition, the Revision petitioner/Tenant had stated that the TNHB and the Labour Department had recognised him as an allottee to the house bearing No.1 Jeganathan Colony and that he was residing and in possession and enjoyment of the same from the year 1965 onwards to till date without any interruption from any public and officials of the TNHB had recognised him as an allottee of the petition mentioned property in the records of the Housing Board. Moreover, the Respondent/Landlords father died intestate leaving behind his wife Rangammal and two daughters Navamani and Vanajamani, the Respondent/Landlord and one Purushothaman (sons) as his Legal heirs and they were married and living along with their mother and therefore, the question of own use and occupation by one of the Legal heirs of deceased Venkitasamy Naidu does not arise at all. 13. Inasmuch as the said Venkitasamy himself was not the allottee of the said house and he was not the owner of the said house, the Revision petitioner/Tenant also took the stand that the Respondent/Landlord is a stranger to him and therefore, he is not liable to pay the Rent to the Respondent/Landlord or to the other legal heirs of (deceased Venkitasamy), the father of the Respondent/Landlord. Therefore, either the Respondent/Landlord or the other heirs of Venkitasamy had no locus standi to claim any rent from him. Besides they do not have any right to ask the revision petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises and the competent authority in this regard was TNHB. 14. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Landlord submits that the Respondents father Venkitasamy was not the original allottee to the petition mentioned property, who expired on 21.05.1998 leaving behind his wife, 2 sons and 2 daughters as his legal heirs and that the Respondent/Landlord is one of the legal heirs and the other legal heirs had no objection to proceed with the case against the revision petitioner/tenant and they had given authorisation letter in his favour on 05.01.2003. Indeed the petition mentioned property was leased out to the Revision petitioner/Tenant in June, 1970 because of the fact that the Respondent/Landlords father Venkitasamy was not able to live in the petition mentioned property on account of domestic reasons on a monthly rent of Rs.15/- and that after the death of the respondents father, the Revision petitioner/Tenant had not paid the monthly rent from May, 1998 to till date and inasmuch as the Respondent/Landlord is the chief tenant in respect of the demised premises, he is entitled to vacate the revision petitioner/tenant from the petition mentioned property. 15. 15. Besides the above, according to the learned counsel for the Respondent/Landlord that the Respondent/Landlord and his family found it difficult to live in joint family because of the fact that the Respondents brother and his sisters were all married and that the Respondent and his brother are living along with their mother in a rented house, which was not spacious one to suit their needs and therefore petition mentioned property was required for own use and occupation of the one of the legal heirs of the deceased father Venkitasamy. 16. The evidence of P.W.1 (Respondent/Landlord) is to the effect that the deceased father Venkitasamy Naidu worked in the Radhakrishna Mills and the allottee in the allotted place must be a worker and when the petition mentioned property was allotted to his father at that time he had no other house and that the petition mentioned property was allotted to his father on 07.04.1965 through the Labour Department and this like etc., mill worker, industrial workmen were also allotted houses for rent at Rs.15/-p.m. was to be paid as a rent whether the house was accepted or not and his father entered into an agreement with the Government on 12.4.1965 at the monthly rent of Rs.15/-was to be deducted from his monthly salary and after payment of monthly rent for 20 years then the demised property would be given to his father and that his deceased father worked till the year 1981 and as per allotment, his father was residing till the month of May, 1970. 17. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 (Respondent/Landlord) that since the allotted house to his father was not sufficient to their family as per the oral agreement the petition mentioned property was let out revision petitioner/tenant without receipt of an advance amount and that the revision petitioner/tenant was irregular in payment of monthly rents and he used the to tender the monthly rent once in two months and that his father Venkitasamy expired on 21.5.1998 and till fathers death the revision petitioner/tenant was paying monthly rent and thereafter without demand the Revision petitioner had not tendered the monthly rent from April, 1998 and was in arrears of monthly rent. Also the evidence of P.W.1 Respondent/Landlord is to the effect that the petition mentioned property is required for his own use and that he is residing along with the brother and mother in the same house for which he is not able to pay the monthly rent and other legal heirs had given authorisation letter Ex.P5 and till 1989 for the petition mentioned property they had paid the Rent as per Ex.P-6 Rental receipt dated 1.8.1989 issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 18. P.W.2 in his evidence stated that the petition mentioned property was allotted to the Respondent/Landlords father who worked in Radhakrishna Mills. The allotment was made on 7.4.1965 and by virtue of the allotment order 20 houses were allotted and monthly rent was at Rs.15/- and the possession was handed over on 10.4.1965 and as per allotment order whether the house was accepted, otherwise this payment of monthly rent at Rs.15/- was to be paid to the Housing Unit and in regard to the taking over of the possession, there was no document available in the file. 19. P.W.3 in his evidence has stated that Venkitasamy was allotted the petition mentioned property on a monthly rent of Rs.15/-was to be paid by the allottee and monthly rent of Rs.15/- was to be deducted from the salary of the allottee and the deducted sum would be paid through cheque to them and presently the monthly rent was paid through Treasury and the cheque would be sent to them at the time of allotment the allottee was employed at Radhakrishna Mills and on 7.3.1990 the office sent a letter to Venkitasamy Naidu requiring him to come with the proper records in connection with the execution of the sale deed and Ex.P-6 is the paid rental receipt dated 1.8.1989. 20. 20. R.W.1 (Revision petitioner/Tenant)in his evidence has stated that the petition mentioned property had two rooms viz., one hall and a kitchen and it was incorrect to state that he came as a tenant during 1970 to the petition mentioned property and he does not know as of who wrote Ex.R-5 letter dated 17.1.1966 and the monthly rent to be paid by him was deducted from his salary while he was working for which he had not produced any documentary evidence and it was incorrect to state that he had paid rent till the death of Venkitasamy Naidu in the year 1998 and that the tax pertaining to 1981 was paid by him till 2003 for a period of 23 years. 21. It is to be noted that Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 speaks definition of landlord. Section 2 (8) of the Act defined the term tenant. These terms are symmetrical and complementary ones. It is a well settled principle in law that Legal Heirs of Landlord, who is collecting rent during the life time of the Landlord is a landlord within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act and therefore he can maintain an application for eviction after the death of the Landlord. Significantly, the term Landlord under the Act will include also a co-owner. 22. R.W.2 in his evidence has stated that the deceased Venkitasamy had not resided in the allotted petition mentioned property and that the said Venkitasamy let out house allotted to him to the Revision petitioner/Tenant for rent and during 1970 the revision petitioner came as a tenant. Since the deceased Venkitasamy was original allottee of the petition mentioned property, the Housing Board (Labour Department) and not withstanding the fact, the sale deed would be executed in his favour for a period of 20 years. Yet, in law he was the owner of the property and after his demise, the petition mentioned property devolved upon the estate of the deceased viz., the legal heirs including the respondent/tenant (one of the sons). 23. Interestingly, the term Landlord has been employed as a person who is entitled to collect Rent. The tenant is one, who is able to pay the rent. Thus the definition of Landlord is very wide. 23. Interestingly, the term Landlord has been employed as a person who is entitled to collect Rent. The tenant is one, who is able to pay the rent. Thus the definition of Landlord is very wide. The term Landlord should not be construed in a narrow way and it has to be viewed from a larger perspective and viewed in that angle Legal Heirs of the Deceased Landlord can maintain an application for impleading themselves as landlords and continue the eviction proceedings, subject to the condition for the specified qualifications of the deceased landlords. The Respondent/co-owner is as much owner of the whole property as any single owner and therefore in law he is entitled to file a petition for eviction without adding the other co-owners. 24. In regard to the definition tenant as per Section 2(8) of the Act, it is to be pointed out that the term includes any individual by whom rent is payable for building and it includes the surviving wife or son or daughter or any individual continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to a proceedings will surely depend on the fact whether they intended to create a tenancy and the said intention was to be governed from the facts and circumstances of the case given. 25. As per the definition of the term Legal Heirs under Section 2(11) of C.P.C. any person who intermeddles with the Estate of the Deceased will also come within the purview of the same. 26. In the instant case on hand, since the Respondent/Tenant is one of the Legal Heirs of the deceased Venkitasamy and inasmuch as the other Legal Heirs of the Venkitasamy had given authorization letter, the Respondent/Landlord is entitled to file the present Rent Control Original Petition before the learned Rent Controller and the same is perfectly maintainable in law in the considered opinion of this Court. Further, the Respondent/Landlord as one of the legal heirs of Venkitasamy is entitled to file the present Rent Control Original Petition and in law there is no embargo for the same. 27. As far as the present case is concerned, that though the Revision petitioner/Tenant had filed Ex.R-3(series) dated 2.12.2003, the rent was paid in the name of Venkitasamy. Further, the Respondent/Landlord as one of the legal heirs of Venkitasamy is entitled to file the present Rent Control Original Petition and in law there is no embargo for the same. 27. As far as the present case is concerned, that though the Revision petitioner/Tenant had filed Ex.R-3(series) dated 2.12.2003, the rent was paid in the name of Venkitasamy. The Rent was paid on 2.12.2003 in one chalan and another chalan the rent was paid till December, 2003 on the very same date which clearly indicates that the Revision petitioner/Tenant was in payment of the arrears of rent. Also, it cannot be ignored that the allotment of the petition mentioned property in the name of the Respondent/Landlord, the deceased father was not cancelled. 28. Even Ex.P6, point out that the rent was paid by the revision petitioner/Tenant to the Housing Board in the year 1989, as spoken to and admitted by P.W.3. Inasmuch as the original allottee in respect of the petition mentioned house, the Respondent/Landlords deceased father viz., Venkitasamy and because of the fact that the Revision petitioner/Tenant a co-worker, (of the Deceased Venkitasamy), who came as a tenant in the petition mentioned property and in view of the fact that he had not paid the monthly rent from April, 1998 the relationship of the Revision petitioner or owner is in the nature of Tenant and Landlord and soon after the death of the Venkitasamy, the Respondent/Landlord is one of the legal heirs has become the co-owner of the petition mentioned property and as such their exists a relationship of Tenant and landlord between the Revision petitioner/Tenant and the Respondent/Landlord and since the Revision petitioner/Tenant had not paid the monthly rent from April, 1998 to till date, this Court, comes to an inevitable conclusion that he had committed wilful default and render himself liable to be evicted from the petition mentioned property and the point is answered against the Revision petitioner/Tenant. 29. 29. Since the Respondent/Landlord as P.W.1, in his evidence stated that he required petition mentioned building for his own use and occupation as the petition mentioned property is suitable for his family members and since himself and his brother and mother are residing in the single house etc and himself and his brothers are having two children and not in a position to pay the Rent, he requires the petition mentioned building for his own use and occupation, this Court, accepts the same and comes to an inevitable conclusion that the requirement of the Respondent/Landlord of the petition mentioned property as claimed was a bona fide one for his own use and occupation and as such the Revision petitioner/Tenant was liable to be evicted on this ground also and the point is answered against the Revision petitioner/Tenant. 30. In regard to the denial of the plea of title of the respondent/landlord by the Revision petitioner/tenant, it is to be pointed out that this Court had come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner/tenant was the tenant in respect of the petition mentioned property and that he had committed wilful default in regard to the payment of the monthly rent for the period from April, 1998 till date and therefore, it was not open to the Revision petitioner to deny the bona fide Title of the Landlord in respect of the petition mentioned property when the Respondent/Landlords father Venkitasamy was allotted the petition mentioned property (through the Labour Department) and viewed in that perspective, the claim of the Revision petitioner/Tenant in regard to the denial of the title of the landlord by him was not an bona fide one and the same was an otiose one and the point is answered against the Revision petitioner/Tenant. 31. For the foregoing reasons and detailed discussions, the Civil Revision Petition filed by the revision petitioner is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the order of the Learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, viz., the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in R.C.A.No.44 of 2006 dated 20.07.2006 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Civil Revision petition. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 32. Consequently, the order of the Learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, viz., the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in R.C.A.No.44 of 2006 dated 20.07.2006 is affirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Civil Revision petition. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 32. The Revision petitioner/Tenant is directed to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the petition mentioned property to the Respondent/Landlord within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.