Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 642 (MAD)

Renganathan v. Jhansi Lakshmirani

2012-02-07

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The tenant is the revision petitioner. The respondents/ landlords filed RCOP.No.3 of 2000 for eviction on the ground of willful default in payment of rent denial of title and for demolition and reconstruction. 2. The learned Rent Controller and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority ordered eviction and aggrieved by the same this revision is filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that admittedly in the partition suit O.S.No.737 of 1966 possession was not taken and only in the year 2000 a symbolic possession was taken and the revision petitioner was not aware of the partition suit between the owners of the property and even in the reply notice the revision petitioner sought for details about the decree passed in the partition suit in O.S.No.737 of 1966 and without giving the particulars regarding the final decree in O.S.No.737 of 1966 the petition was filed for eviction in the year 2000 and that was the reason for the stand taken by the revision petitioner denying the relationship between the parties as admittedly he was a tenant under one Sundaram Iyengar and therefore the denial of title is not mala fide and without proving the title of the respondents/ landlords, they are not entitled to file the petition for eviction. 4. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The case of the revision petitioner as stated in the petition in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2000 was that O.S.No.737 of 1966 was filed by one Sitammal for partition and in that suit a preliminary decree was passed declaring the rights of the parties and in I.A.No.1125 of 1990 a final decree was passed on 12.9.1996. As per the final decree, the suit property which was included in the 'E' Schedule property in the final decree, was allotted to the share of the respondents/ landlords. Admittedly, Sundaram Iyengar was one of the co-owners of the property inducted the revision petitioner as a tenant and he was collecting the rent at the rate of Rs.300/- per month and after passing of the final decree and allotment of the schedule mentioned property to the respondents/ landlords in the year 1996, the respondents/ landlords informed the revision petitioner in September 1997 about their title over the property and requested the revision petitioner to pay the rent. The revision petitioner did not pay the rent and filed the suit O.S.No.230 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Arakkonam for injunction against the petitioners and Sundaram Iyengar. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 9.1.1999 by the respondents/landlords to the petitioner herein calling upon him to vacate and hand over vacant possession and that was replied by the revision petitioner stating that he paid the rent to Sundaram Iyengar and he also claimed that he spent Rs.25,000/-for the improvement of the property and Sundaram Iyengar agreed to adjust the same from the rent and therefore the rent was not paid. 5. The revision petitioner also contested the rent control application stating that he has spent Rs.25,000/- for the improvement of the property with the consent of Sundaram Iyengar and he agreed to adjust the amount from the rent and the respondents herein have to prove their title and there is no relationship of landlords and tenant between the respondents and the petitioner. 6. The learned Rent Controller on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence held that as per the admission of the revision petitioner, he has not paid the rent from January 1998 either to Sundaram Iyengar or to the respondents/ landlords and therefore the non-payment of rent from 1998 can only be construed as willful default. Further, the property is more than 40 years old and the landlords have proved their means to demolish the property and they have also got permission from the local authorities and there was no denial by the revision petitioner herein that the landlords have no means to put up new construction. The learned Rent Controller also held that the denial of title by the revision petitioner is not bona fide and ordered eviction. The same was confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority after independently considering the oral and documentary evidence. 7. In my opinion both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner has committed willful default in payment of rent and the building is bona fidely required by the landlords for demolition and reconstruction. The same was confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority after independently considering the oral and documentary evidence. 7. In my opinion both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the revision petitioner has committed willful default in payment of rent and the building is bona fidely required by the landlords for demolition and reconstruction. As stated supra, admittedly the rent from 1998 onwards was not paid by the revision petitioner and even assuming that the respondents/ landlords have not proved to the satisfaction of the revision petitioner that they are the owners of the property, the revision petitioner ought to have taken steps to deposit the rent before the Rent Controller when he was admittedly inducted into the property as a tenant and according to him the landlord was Sundaram Iyengar the revision petitioner has not paid the rent either to Sundaram Iyengar or to the respondents and therefore the Court below have rightly held that the conduct of the revision petitioner in not taking any steps to pay the rent either of them will amount to willful default and ordered eviction. Similarly, there is no denial by the revision petitioner regarding the means of the landlords to put up new construction and the landlords have also let in evidence about their means and also got the permission for demolition and reconstruction. 8. Hence, both the Courts below have rightly ordered eviction and I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the Courts below and I do not find any merit in the revision and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.