Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3069 (MAD)

V. T. R. Murugan v. Mohammed Arif Sait

2010-07-23

G.RAJASURIA

body2010
Judgment :- 1. Inveighing the common judgment and decrees dated 3.2.2010 passed by the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority) in RCA Nos. 408 and 409 of 2009 confirming the orders and decretal orders dated 15.7.2009 passed by the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Controller) in RCOP Nos. 809 and 810 of 2008, these two Civil Revision Petitions have been focused. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The facts giving rise to the filing of these two Revisions as stood exposited from the records would run thus: (a) The First Respondent/ Landlord file RCOP Nos.809 and 810 of 2008 invoking Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2(ii)(a) and 14 (i)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act as against the two Respondents therein including the Revision Petitioner herein, who was R2 therein. R1 remained ex-parte. R2 filed Counter and contested the matter. (b) During enquiry, in both the RCOPs, on the side of the Landlord, one Mohammed Iqbal Sait was examined as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. On the side of the Tenant, he examined himself as RW1 and Exhibits Ex.R1 to R7 were marked. Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered eviction in both the Petitions. (c) Being aggrieved by the orders of eviction, R2/ the Revision Petitioner herein preferred Appeal before the Appellate Authority for nothing but to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority, as against which, the present Revisions have been filed on the following grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: (i) Both the Courts below fell into error in failing to see that there was collusion between the Landlord and the First Respondent in the RCOPs. (ii) The Courts below failed to take into consideration the fact that the Revision Petitioner herein started occupying the premises from the year 2007 under RI in the RCOPs believing that R1 was the owner of the premises. However, the First Respondent herein filed the RCOPs projecting himself as Landlord and whereupon eviction was ordered. The First Respondent herein has not proved the sub-tenancy. Accordingly, the Revision Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of both the RCOPs after setting aside the orders of both the Courts below. 4. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ R2 reiterating the grounds of Revision would develop his argument, which could tersely and pithily be set out thus: 1. The First Respondent herein has not proved the sub-tenancy. Accordingly, the Revision Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of both the RCOPs after setting aside the orders of both the Courts below. 4. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ R2 reiterating the grounds of Revision would develop his argument, which could tersely and pithily be set out thus: 1. The collusion between First Respondent in the RCOPs and the First Respondent herein is writ large as after filing counter he never participated in the proceedings. 2. Unless unauthorised sub-tenancy is proved by the First Respondent herein, the question of evicting the Revision Petitioner would not arise. 3. In response to the order passed by this Court in M.P. No.1 of 2010 dated 15.4.2010, the Revision Petitioner herein also deposited in Court a sum of Rs.15,600/- and Rs.37,400 totalling Rs.53,000/-. As such, taking into account the bona fides of the Revision Petitioner, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner prayed for allowing both the Revisions. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the First Respondent/ Landlord would advance his arguments, which could succinctly and precisely be set out thus: a. The very narration of facts on the side of the Revision Petitioner would display and demonstrate, evince and expatiate that he admitted sub-tenancy. b. Admittedly, there is no contractual relationship between the First Respondent herein and the Revision Petitioner and the Revision Petitioner would candidly and categorically, plainly and pellucidly admit that he entered into the demised premises only under the First Respondent in the RCOPs, who happened to be the Tenant under the First Respondent herein/ Landlord. c. As such, the Revision Petitioner’s belief as though the First Respondent in the RCOPs was the Landlord is neither here nor there and in no way his tenancy under the First Respondent in the RCOPs could be termed as original tenancy and it would only amount to sub-tenancy. d. The First Respondent herein never permitted the First Respondent in the RCOPs to sub-let the premises. As per Ex.P3, the First Respondent in the RCOPs was not enjoined to sub-lease the premises but quite antithetical to the said clause against sublease, the First Respondent in the RCOPs sub-let the premises in favour of the Revision Petitioner herein and thereby the Revision Petitioner was liable to be evicted along with R1 in both the RCOPs. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of both the Revisions. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of both the Revisions. 6. The points for consideration are as to: 1. Whether the First Respondent in both the RCOPs sub-let the premises in favour of the Revision Petitioner herein in violation of the Clause against sub-tenant as per Ex.P3? 2. Whether there is any infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by both the Courts below? 3. Whether there was wilful default on the part of the original Tenant, i.e. R1 in both the RCOPs in favour of the Landlord in paying rent? Point No.1: 7. Indubitably and indisputably, admittedly and unassailably the Rent Agreement would evince and evidence that there is a Clause against sub-letting by the chief Tenant. But the very narration of facts by the Revision Petitioner to the effect that he believed those Tenants under the First Respondent herein as the owners and took on lease the premises would speak by itself that those original Tenants sub-let the demised premises in favour of the Revision Petitioner. Mere ignorance pleaded by the Revision Petitioner herein relating to the ownership of the demised premises would in no way come to the rescue of the Revision Petitioner as sub tenancy contemplates that if original Tenant lease out unauthorisedly in favour of a third person then that would constitute sub-lease or sub-tenancy. Mere knowledge or lack of knowledge on the part of the sub-tenant would not in any way help him to put forth and set forth before the Court that his tenancy under the original Tenant should not be treated as sub-tenancy. This point is decided accordingly as against the Revision Petitioner. Point No.2: 8. In view of the ratiocination adhered to in deciding Point No.1, I could see no perversity or illegality in the orders passed by both the Courts below. Point No.2 is decided accordingly. Point No.3: 9. The contention on the side of the Revision Petitioner that there was collusion between the original Tenants and the Landlord would not in any way ensure to the benefit of the Revision Petitioner. The original Tenants by not paying the rent, candidly and categorically admitted virtually the wilful default in paying rent and accordingly the Courts below passed eviction orders as against which they have not filed any Appeal or Revision. 10. The original Tenants by not paying the rent, candidly and categorically admitted virtually the wilful default in paying rent and accordingly the Courts below passed eviction orders as against which they have not filed any Appeal or Revision. 10. It is quite obvious and axiomatic that the ground of wilful default in paying rent cannot be pressed into service as against the sub-tenant for the reason that the Revision Petitioner as per them is only an unauthorised sub-Tenant and from him no rent also could be demanded legally by the Landlord. As such it is quite clear that the Revision Petitioner herein as correctly ordered by the Courts below may be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of unauthorised occupancy of the premises under unauthorised sub-tenancy. 11. Point No.3 is decided accordingly as against the Revision Petitioner. 12. In the result, I find no merit in these Revisions and accordingly both the Revisions are dismissed. 13. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/ Tenant would make an extempore submission to the effect that all along the Revision Petitioner has been doing business and if he has to vacate the premises he should find a suitable alternative accommodation and for that he would require at least a year’s time for which the learned Counsel for the Landlord would submit that his client has been languishing and waiting eagerly to take possession of the building and as such three months’ time may be granted to vacate the premises. 14. By way of striking a balance between the two, I would like to grant six months’ time for vacating and handing over possession of the demised premises to the Landlord subject to the following conditions: (i) The Revision Petitioner and the chief Tenants shall vacate and hand over vacant premises to the First Respondent/ Landlord within six months’ from this date. The Revision Petitioner shall also continue to deposit at the same rate of rent at which he deposited the rent before the lower Court in both the Petitions and if there is any default, it is open for the First Respondent / Landlord to file E.P at once, i.e., even before the time stipulated for vacating the premises. The Revision Petitioner shall also continue to deposit at the same rate of rent at which he deposited the rent before the lower Court in both the Petitions and if there is any default, it is open for the First Respondent / Landlord to file E.P at once, i.e., even before the time stipulated for vacating the premises. (ii) The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner shall file an Affidavit of undertaking to vacate the premises subject to the above condition before this Court within fifteen days from this date. 15. With the above direction, both these Revisions are dismissed. No Costs.