Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 4108 (MAD)

S. Ramamoorthi v. Mahalingam

2010-09-13

V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH

body2010
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the rejection order passed in CFR No.4946 of 2010 in I.A.___ of 2010 in RCA No.2 of 2009, by the lower Court against the application filed by the petitioner/respondent(tenant) to implead 3rd parties/respondents 3 to 6 as necessary parties to the appeal proceedings. 2. Heard Mr.T.M. Hariharan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, the learned senior counsel for Mr.Govi Ganesan the respondents 1 & 2. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit in his argument that the application was filed by the petitioner before the lower Court, namely the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.2 of 2009 for impleading necessary parties to the said proceedings which was wrongly rejected by the lower Court. He would further submit in his argument that the lower Court was not correct to say that the provisions of CPC do not apply to Rent Control proceedings, which requires re-consideration as the Honble Apex Court had settled the principle of law in several judgments that the provisions of CPC are applicable to the rent control proceedings. He would also submit that this Court has also decided in various cases, that the provisions of CPC are applicable whenever it is not excluded or where provisions have not been given under the rent control Act. He would further submit in his argument that the proposed parties namely respondents 3 to 6 are necessary parties as they are the owners of the demised property to which the petitioner already raised a dispute at the earliest that the respondents 1 and 2 are not the owners of the demised property. He would further submit that the petitioner did not attorn tenancy with the respondents 1 and 2 and he is not their tenant. He would also submit that Arulmigu Visveswara Swamy & Veeraghava Perumal Thirukkovil Devasthanam, Thiruppur, has demanded the petitioner to pay rent to them on the foot of a decree passed in favour of the said devasthanam regarding the demised property and therefore, he had put forth the denial of title and for proving the said fact, it has become necessary for impleadment of the parties, who are actually the owners of the demised properties. He would also submit that a suit in O.S.No.179 of 1999 on the file of the Sub-Court, Thiruppur, was filed by the 3rd respondent Devasthanam against the father of the respondents 1 and 2 and a decree has also been passed against him and therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 cannot claim to be the land-lords of the demised property. Further the finding of the lower Court, that the said decree was passed on a dead person namely, the father of the respondents 1 and 2, would not in any way take away the plea of denial of title since the said decree has not been set aside so far. He would also submit that in view of the said decree passed against the father of the respondents 1 and 2, the denial of title to the petition mentioned property was a bona-fide and it would strengthen by the ordering impleadment of respondents 3 to 6 and it would also avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In support of his arguments he would draw the attention of this Court to a judgment of Honble Apex Court reported in 2010 (2) SCC 162 , in between Suresh Kumar Bansal vs.Krishna Bansal and another. He would also place the judgments of the Honble Apex Court reported in 1973(1) SCC 761 in between K.K.Chari Vs. R.M.Seshadri, and also the judgment of this Court reported in 1998 (III) CTC 138 in between S.Santhana Selvaraj Vs.Jaffar Khan and two others. He would also cite a judgment reported in 1997 (1) MLJ 651 in between E.Devarani and others Vs.Santhana Kumar Nadar to the effect that the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, can also be made applicable to the eviction proceedings filed under Rent Control Act. He would further submit that the denial of title pleaded by him was at the earliest and to test the bona-fide of such denial of true owners namely, respondents 3 to 6 are ordered to have been impleaded and the lower Court ought to have directed to admit the application to hear the proposed parties contentions. Since he has raised the plea of denial of title, at the earliest point, it cannot be said that the petitioner was estopped from taking steps to implead the proposed parties. Since he has raised the plea of denial of title, at the earliest point, it cannot be said that the petitioner was estopped from taking steps to implead the proposed parties. He would therefore, request the Court to interfere and set aside the order passed by the lower Court, in rejecting the application to implead parties and thereby to give a direction to the lower Court for ordering notice to the respondents and the proposed parties. 4. The learned senior counsel Mr.S.V.Jayaraman would submit in his argument that the lower Court had entertained the appeal after the rent controller had dismissed the claim of the petitioner denying the title of the landlords, respondents 1 and 2, was not bona-fide. He would further submit that the petitioner did not opt to file the application, before the learned Rent Controller for the impleadment of the proposed parties as the real owners of the property. He would further submit that the legal proceedings said to have been taken by the 3rd respondent, devasthanam in O.S.No.179 of 1999, on the file of Sub-Court, Thiruppur, was not against the respondents 1 and 2 but was against their father who was dead even on the date of filing of the suit and therefore, the said judgment could not be effective, even against any 3rd parties. He would further submit in his argument that the impleadment of 3rd parties is not necessary for deciding the question of bonafide of the tenant, in denying the title of the land lords. He would also submit that the petitioner did not reply to the notice sent by the respondents 1 and 2 prior to the filing of the eviction proceedings. It has been set up by the petitioner, only after filing of eviction proceedings as if he did not attorn the tenancy with the respondents 1 and 2 especially, when he had admitted the title of the vendor of the respondents 1 and 2, who are none other than the sons of the deceased defendant in O.S.No.179 of 1999. It has been set up by the petitioner, only after filing of eviction proceedings as if he did not attorn the tenancy with the respondents 1 and 2 especially, when he had admitted the title of the vendor of the respondents 1 and 2, who are none other than the sons of the deceased defendant in O.S.No.179 of 1999. He would also submit that when the petitioner has admitted the title of the deceased defendant in O.S.No.179 of 1999, he cannot rely upon the said judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.179 of 1999, the said defendant was alive and a valid decree has been passed in favour of the 3rd respondent, Devasthanam and in that circumstances, the denial of title of the respondents 1 and 2 by the petitioner is not bona-fide. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioner cannot insist the Court to implead the rival parties in the eviction proceedings for deciding the title of the property under the Rent Control Act. The said principle has been laid down in various judgment of the Honble Apex Court including judgment cited by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. He would also submit in his argument that an estoppal against the revision petitioner is still continuing. He would also cite a judgment of this Court reported in (2006) 4 MLJ 799 in between K.Bhuvanesh Vs. Rakman Bibi and others for the principle that the rent controller has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the title to the property. Therefore, he would request this Court that the lower Court has correctly come to the conclusion that there is no reason to admit the said application for impleadment of the proposed parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for deciding the title of the demised property. He would therefore, request the Court to dismiss the revision petition. 5. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on both sides. The revision has been filed by the petitioner / appellant / tenant who is lost his case before the Rent Controller and the appeal before Appellate Authority and in the said appal he filed an application to implead the respondents 3 to 6 as proper and necessary parties in the appeal in order to prove that the denial of title of the respondents 1 and 2 to the demised property, by him is bona-fide. The lower Court namely the Rent Control Appellate Authority had rejected the said application as not maintainable. The reason attributed by the lower Court was to the effect that the provisions of CPC is not applicable to the rent control proceedings and the impleadment of third parties was not necessary for the purpose of deciding the bona-fide of the denial of title made by the petitioner / tenant. 6. The point for consideration in this case is whether the order passed by the lower Court is against law and therefore, it is liable to be interfered and set aside. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has raised the plea of denial of title against the respondents 1 and 2 in respect of the demised property when he had filed a counter against the eviction petition. At the same time, he has also admitted that he was inducted as a tenant under the vendors of the respondents 1 and 2. His only contention was that he did not attorn tenancy with the respondents 1 and 2 and therefore, he had put up a defence that the respondents 1 and 2 are not landlords and they have no title. It has also been raised that the demised property was belonging to the third respondent devasthanam by virtue of a decree obtained by them against the father of the vendor of the respondents 1 and 2 and therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 have no title to the said property. The Rent Controller has gone into the said question in the R.C.O.P. and had decided that the denial of title to the property raised by the revision petitioner, as tenant was not bona-fide. Now, it has been urged before the lower Court that the third respondent, devasthanam and its supervising authorities, namely respondents 4 to 6, if impleaded that would prove the case of the revision petitioner before the lower Court. 7. No doubt, it is clear from the judgments of the Honble Apex Court and the judgment of this Court, the application of CPC in eviction proceedings is permissible as far as possible. 7. No doubt, it is clear from the judgments of the Honble Apex Court and the judgment of this Court, the application of CPC in eviction proceedings is permissible as far as possible. According to the judgment of Honble Apex Court reported in (1973) 1 SCC 761 in between K.K.Chari v. R.M. Seshadri it has been held as follows:- Para: 39: "...The application of Code of Civil Procedure is not excluded in proceedings before the Rent Controller and in any case there is no reason why the principle underlying Order 23, Rule 3 should not apply to those proceedings." 8. The said view was also endorsed in a judgment of this Court reported in 1998 (III) CTC 138 in between S.Santhana Selvaraj v. Jaffar Khan and two others. It has been categorically held as follows:- Para.3: " ... Even in respect of the rent control proceedings Civil Procedure Code is applicable as far as possible. When an application has been filed to adduce additional evidence by any of the parties to the proceedings at the appellate stage, it is the duty of the Court to take up the application for additional evidence along with the appeal and dispose of the same." As far as the impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is concerned, the intention of the provisions would be that the proposed parties sought to be impleaded should have been proper and necessary parties to the proceedings. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether the respondents 3 to 6 are necessary parties. The lower Court had come to a conclusion that the respondents 3 to 6 are not necessary parties since the dispute as to title in between the parties cannot be decided in an eviction proceedings. 9. As submitted by the learned senior counsel, when we go through the judgment of this Court reported in (2006) 4 MLJ 799 in between K.Bhuvanesh Vs. Rakman Bibi and others, we could understand that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on title to the property and the Rent Controller can only to decide the bona-fidie of the denial of title by a tenant in the proceedings under the Act. It has been categorically laid down in the judgment of Honble Apex Court reported in (2010) 2 SCC 162 in between Suresh Kumar Bansal Vs. It has been categorically laid down in the judgment of Honble Apex Court reported in (2010) 2 SCC 162 in between Suresh Kumar Bansal Vs. Krishna Bansal and another as follows:- "It is now well settled that determination of the question as to who is the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff or defendant under Order 2 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is only for the purpose of bringing legal representatives on record for the conducting of those legal proceedings only and does not operate as res judicata and the inter se dispute between the rival legal representatives has to be independently tried and decided in probate proceedings. If this is allowed to be carried on for a decision of an eviction suit or other allied suits, the suits would be delayed, by which only the tenants will be benefited." 10. Similar view has been expressed in the judgment of Honble Apex Court reported in (2002) 5 SCC 337 in between A.V.G.P. Chettiar & Sons and others Vs. T.Palanisamy Gounder, in which the relevant passage would run as follows:- Para 9 : "... It is clear from the language of this proviso, that the Rent Controller has only to decide whether there is a bona-fide dispute as to landlords title and has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of title. That would be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court." 11. The dictum laid down by the aforesaid judgments of the Honble Apex Court as well as this Court would go to show that the learned Rent Controller or the Rent Control Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of title, but it has to decide the plea of bona-fide in denying the title of the landlord. For the said purpose, it is not necessary to order impleading the rival claimants of the demised property to prove the bona-fide of the tenant. The admissions on the part of the revision petitioner that he was a tenant inducted by the vendor of the respondents 1 and 2, who is none other than the son of the defendant in O.S. No.179 of 1999, and the estoppal pleaded thereon, should have been considered only in the appeal, by the lower Court. The admissions on the part of the revision petitioner that he was a tenant inducted by the vendor of the respondents 1 and 2, who is none other than the son of the defendant in O.S. No.179 of 1999, and the estoppal pleaded thereon, should have been considered only in the appeal, by the lower Court. Therefore, the finding of the lower Court that the application filed by the revision petitioner before the lower Court seeking to implead respondents 3 to 6 as proper and necessary party, as not sustainable is quite in accordance with law and therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the said order. 12. The revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order of lower Court is therefore, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.