Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1027 (MAD)

Albert v. M. Y. Mohammed Syed Ibrahim

2012-02-27

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2012
Judgment :- The revision petitioner is the tenant. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No. 4 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif (Rent Controller), Coonoor for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and owner's occupation. 2. The case of the respondent/ landlord was that the property originally belonged to one Annaswamy and from the legal heirs of Annaswamy he purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 15.2.2000 and even before the sale, his vendors informed the revision petitioner to attorn tenancy in favour of the respondent and even after the purchase the respondent sent a letter to the revision petitioner informing about the sale in his favour and requested the revision petitioner to attorn tenancy in his favour. The same was followed by the lawyer's notice. The revision petitioner evaded the receipt of all the notices and also did not pay the rent. Therefore, the application was filed for eviction on the above grounds. 3. The revision petitioner contested the application that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and he was put in permissive possession of the property under the agreement of sale dated 11.7.1985 alleged to have been executed by one of the legal heirs of Annaswamy namely G.A.Thomas and therefore he continued to be in possession of the property in pursuance of the said agreement and he also puts up superstructure and he was not a tenant either under G.A.Thomas or under the vendors of the respondent and therefore the petition is not maintainable. Both the Courts below held that the revision petitioner was a tenant under the vendors of the respondent and he has committed default in payment of rent and the building is required for own occupation of the landlord and for ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. 4. Mr. Both the Courts below held that the revision petitioner was a tenant under the vendors of the respondent and he has committed default in payment of rent and the building is required for own occupation of the landlord and for ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. 4. Mr. R.Subramanian, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the respondent did not prove that the revision petitioner was a tenant under his vendors, when the revision petitioner specifically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties in the counter and the respondent did not examine the vendors to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and in the absence of proving the relationship of landlord and tenant, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and both the authorities below without deciding whether there exist the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ordered eviction, presuming that the respondent is the owner of the property and the revision petitioner is a tenant under the respondent. He further submitted that except marking the notices sent by the respondent and his vendors, the respondent has not marked the sale deed to prove his title and according to the revision petitioner the property belonged to one G.A.Thomas son of Annaswamy who was the owner and the said G.A.Thomas entered into an agreement with the revision petitioner for sale of the property and in the year 2009 the legal heir of G.A.Thomas also executed the sale deed in favour of the revision petitioner and also filed M.P.No.1 of 2011 to receive the sale deed executed by the legal heir of G.A.Thomas in favour of the revision petitioner as additional evidence. He therefore, submitted that without giving any finding regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties both the Courts below proceeded on the basis that the revision petitioner is a tenant under the respondent ordered eviction. 5. He therefore, submitted that without giving any finding regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties both the Courts below proceeded on the basis that the revision petitioner is a tenant under the respondent ordered eviction. 5. On the other hand, Ms.P.T.Asha the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that under Ex.R1, the revision petitioner claims to be in possession of the property and there is nothing in Ex.R1 to suggest that possession was handed over to the revision petitioner under the document and no proof has been adduced by the revision petitioner that he has put up construction in the said property and when the original owners sent notice to the revision petitioner informing about the sale in favour of the respondent, the respondent did not receive the notice and even in the evidence the respondent has stated that he was not aware of the legal heirs of G.A.Thomas and surprisingly the sale deed has been produced as if G.A.Thomas left behind his son by name Alexter Cyril and he executed a sale deed in favour of the revision petitioner on 28.10.2009 and according to the respondent, G.A.Thomas died issueless and without producing the legal heirship certificate of G.A.Thomas, it cannot be stated that G.A.Thomas left behind him a son and the sale deed was obtained by the revision petitioner from that son. The learned counsel for the respondent therefore submitted that having regard to the fact that the previous vendors informed the revision petitioner about the sale and requested the revision petitioner to attorn tenancy in favour of the respondent, the Courts below has rightly held that the respondent became the owner of the property and therefore the eviction ordered by the Court below need not be interfered with in the revision petition. 6. Head both sides. 7. Admittedly, the respondent did not file his sale deed before the Courts below and did not examine his vendor when the revision petitioner disputed the case of the respondent that he was not a tenant under the vendors of the respondent and he is in possession of the property pursuant to the agreement of sale executed by G.A.Thomas. Admittedly, the property belonged to one Annaswamy and he had three sons and G.A.Thomas was one of the three sons and the respondent alleged to have purchased the suit property from the other legal heirs. Admittedly, the property belonged to one Annaswamy and he had three sons and G.A.Thomas was one of the three sons and the respondent alleged to have purchased the suit property from the other legal heirs. Even assuming that the respondent has purchased the suit property from the other legal heirs and even assuming that G.A.Thomas died issueless as contended by the respondent, when the revision petitioner questioned the title of the respondent's vendor and contended that he was not a tenant under them, it is the duty of the respondent to prove that the revision petitioner was a tenant under his vendors and therefore after his purchase the revision petitioner continued to be as a tenant. According to me, this was not proved by the respondent either by examining the vendors or by producing other documents to prove the tenancy. Except the notice sent by the vendors of the respondent and the notice sent by the respondent no document was produced by the respondent to prove that the revision petitioner was put in possession of the property by the vendors. According to me, the Rent Controller gets jurisdiction only when the tenancy is admitted by the parties. In this case, the revision petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and without giving any finding, the Courts below should not have proceeded further and admittedly the Courts below without giving any finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties and the revision petitioner was a tenant under the vendors of the respondent, ordered eviction. As the revision petitioner questioned the title of the respondent and the respondent also did not file the sale deed in my opinion, the denial of title by the revision petitioner is bona fide and unless the respondent proved the title to the suit property in the competent Civil Court he is not entitled to maintain action for eviction before the Rent Controller. 8. Hence, the orders of the Courts below are set aside and the revision is allowed holding that the denial of title by the revision petitioner is bona fide and the respondent has not proved that there exist the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Therefore, it is open to the parties to prove their title before the competent Civil Court and get appropriate orders. With the above direction, the Civil Revision is allowed. Therefore, it is open to the parties to prove their title before the competent Civil Court and get appropriate orders. With the above direction, the Civil Revision is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.