Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 887 (MAD)

S. R. Angamuthu Pillai v. S. Krishnamoorthy

2011-02-18

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2011
Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner is the tenant. The respondent filed the application for eviction of tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. 2. The case of the respondent was that the property was originally owned by Shri.S.R.Natarajan, brother of the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner was the tenant under the said Natarajan and was paying a monthly rent of Rs.250/= initially and later, it was enhanced to Rs.500/= in the year 1980 and the respondent purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 28.1.1993 and thereafter, the respondent's vendor informed the petitioner to pay the rent to the respondent and the petitioner also agreed for the same and thereafter, committed default and therefore, a notice was sent on 16.9.1993 calling upon the petitioner to pay rent from 28.1.1993 and there was o response and therefore, the petition was filed for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent. 3. The petitioner herein denied the allegation that he was tenant under the vendor of the respondent and after the purchase of the property by the respondent, he agreed to attorn tenancy to the respondent. The case of the petitioner was that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the vendor of the respondent and therefore, there is no question of wilful default in payment of rent. According to the petitioner, the father of the respondent Natarajan is his brother and that the property was purchased in the name of Natarajan and he was permitted to occupy by his brother Natarajan in the petition mentioned property and in the year 1971-72, the said Natarajan wanted to do business and agreed to sell the property to the petitioner and the petitioner paid various amounts from 1972-1987 and is in possession and enjoyment of the property as owner of the property and has also perfected title to the petition mentioned property by adverse possession and also filed a suit for declaration that he had perfected title by adverse possession in O.S.No.766 of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Salem and therefore, the petition filed under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is not maintainable. 4. The Rent Controller accepted the contention of the petitioner and dismissed the petition filed by the respondent holding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 4. The Rent Controller accepted the contention of the petitioner and dismissed the petition filed by the respondent holding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The respondent herein filed appeal in R.C.A.No.6 of 2000 on the file of the Sub Court, Salem and the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and held that the petitioner is the tenant under the vendor of the respondent and therefore, eviction petition is maintainable and as the petitioner also wilfully denied the title of the landlord during the pendency of the petition, he is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful denial of title. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. 5. The suit in O.S.No.766 of 1993 filed by the petitioner herein for declaration that he had perfected title to the property by adverse possession and for injunction was decreed and the respondent herein and his vendor, who were the defendants in the suit, filed appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Salem and the learned Principal District Judge, Salem allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed S.A.No.2315 of 2004 before this court and both the second appeal and the revision were heard together. 6. The second appeal was dismissed by me holding that the petitioner herein has not perfected title by adverse possession. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that though the petitioner might not have proved his adverse possession, having regard to the fact that there is no relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties, the application for eviction filed by the respondent is not maintainable. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the specific case of the respondent herein was that the petitioner was a tenant under his vendor, who is none other than the petitioner's brother and after the purchase of the property by the respondent, the petitioner attorned tenancy in favour of the respondent and such plea of tenancy under the vendor of the respondent and thereafter attornment of tenancy in favour of the respondent was not proved by the respondent and in the absence of any proof of relationship of landlord and tenant, eviction petition is not maintainable. 8. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that when the case of the petitioner regarding adverse possession was found to be false, the case of the respondent that he was a tenant under his vendor and thereafter, he attorned the tenancy in favour of the respondent has to be accepted and the lower appellate court rightly considered the evidence of PW2 and held that the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent's vendor and their existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the petitioner wilfully denied the title of the landlord and therefore, he is liable to be evicted and ordered eviction. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the lower appellate court need not be interfered with. 9. According to me, the petitioner has failed to prove his case that he entered into an agreement of sale with his brother Natarajan and continued to pay various sums towards sale consideration and also perfected title by adverse possession. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was permitted to be in possession of the property even before the alleged oral agreement of sale. In the second appeal, I have held that the petitioner herein, who is the appellant, has not proved his case and has not perfected title by adverse possession. On the other hand, the vendor of the respondent Natarajan was examined as PW2 and he has spoken about the tenancy agreement between him and the petitioner and considering all these aspects, the lower appellate court has rightly held that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Further, prior to filing of the petitioner and prior to the filing of the suit, by the petitioner, notice was sent by the respondent demanding rent and there was no reply. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the case of the respondent that the petitioner was a tenant under his vendor is more probable and therefore, there existed a relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties and the petition for eviction is maintainable. 10. Further, admittedly, the petitioner herein filed a suit for declaration that he had perfected title by adverse possession over the petition mentioned property. In the second appeal, I held that the petitioner has not perfected title by adverse possession and he is not entitled to the declaratory relief. 10. Further, admittedly, the petitioner herein filed a suit for declaration that he had perfected title by adverse possession over the petition mentioned property. In the second appeal, I held that the petitioner has not perfected title by adverse possession and he is not entitled to the declaratory relief. Therefore, having regard to the plea taken by the petitioner that he had perfected title by adverse possession, the petitioner has denied title of the landlord viz., the respondent herein and the denial is mala fide and therefore, he is entitled to be evicted on the ground of wilful denial of title of the landlord. Hence, the rent control appellate authority has rightly allowed the appeal and ordered eviction. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the rent control appellate authority. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.