Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2154 (MAD)

K. Ravi @ Loganathan v. T. R. Thangavelu

2013-06-24

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The tenant is the Revision Petitioner. He is aggrieved against the order of eviction passed by the Courts below concurrently. The first respondent herein filed R.C.O.P.No. 207 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif and Rent Controller, Coimbatore seeking eviction of the petitioner herein and the second respondent on the ground of owner's occupation and wilful default in payment of rent commencing from 20.8.2004 till 20.10.2005. The monthly rent payable is Rs.900/-. The said petition was resisted by the petitioner herein as the first respondent by contending that the petition mentioned property is the Trust property belonging to the second respondent herein and the petitioner /landlady has no right, title or interest in the said property. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition by holding that the tenant/ petitioner herein entered into an agreement with the first respondent herein/ landlord in the year 2000 and paid the advance. It is also found by the learned Rent Controller that even though the said Trust was made as a party second respondent in the RCOP, no counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent and no evidence was let in by them. It is further found by the learned Rent Controller that the tenant has not taken any steps under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to pay the rent into the Court, if there was any doubt with regard to the ownership of the suit property. It is also not established by the tenant that he is paying the rent to the second respondent all these years. The learned Rent Controller has also found that Ex.P4 sale deed in respect of petition mentioned premises stands in the name of the first respondent herein and Ex.P5 electricity service connection also stands in the name of the first respondent. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller has found that it is only the first respondent being the landlord is entitled to maintain the petition and since the landlord established that the petitioner/tenant has committed wilful default in paying the rent, the Rent Controller has ordered eviction. Insofar as the other ground, viz., owner's occupation is concerned, the learned Rent Controller has found that the tenant, except by saying that it is only an imaginary, has not disputed the said requirement. Accordingly, the learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on that ground also. 2. Insofar as the other ground, viz., owner's occupation is concerned, the learned Rent Controller has found that the tenant, except by saying that it is only an imaginary, has not disputed the said requirement. Accordingly, the learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition on that ground also. 2. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner and the second respondent filed an appeal in R.C.A.No. 35 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Coimbatore. The learned Appellate Authority found that the tenant as R.W.1 admitted the payment of rent to the first respondent herein and that the tenant has not established through any documents to prove that the property is owned by the Trust, viz., the second respondent herein. The appellate authority has also considered Ex.P4 the sale deed to hold that the first respondent herein is the landlord having title over the property. The Appellate Authority has also found that when there is landlord and tenant relationship, and when admittedly there is rental arrears, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller cannot be interfered with. Insofar as the claim made on the ground of owner's occupation is concerned, the Appellate Authority found that there was no material objection with regard to the landlord's claim on such ground. Consequently, the appeal filed by the petitioner and the second respondent herein was dismissed. Aggrieved against the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 3. On perusal of the docket entries made in this Civil Revision Petition, it is seen that by an order dated 13.12.2012, my learned Predecessor who heard this matter for admission recorded that the learned counsel for the petitioner /tenant prays for time to ascertain from the client with regard to the period of eviction and report the same to the Court and accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 20.12.2012 finally. Thereafter, the matter was listed before me on 5.6.2013 and again on 17.6.2013. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued the matter on merits and sought for admission of the Civil Revision Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The eviction petition was filed by the first respondent herein on the ground of wilful default and owner's occupation. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued the matter on merits and sought for admission of the Civil Revision Petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The eviction petition was filed by the first respondent herein on the ground of wilful default and owner's occupation. From the reading of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, as well as the Appellate Authority it is clearly seen that the petitioner herein had denied the title of the first respondent herein by contending that the second respondent Trust is the owner of the property and therefore he is not liable to pay any rent to the first respondent herein. On the other hand, both the courts below have concurrently found that the first respondent is the owner of the property, more particularly, by relying on Ex. P4 sale deed and Ex. P5 electricity service connection card both standing in the name of the first respondent. The courts below have also specifically taken note of the admission made by the petitioner as R.W.1 by specifically admitting the payment of rent to the first respondent. When the petitioner has admitted the payment of rent to the first respondent herein and when the sale deed under Ex.P4 and electricity service connection Ex.P5 are standing in the name of the first respondent by proving his ownership over the petition mentioned property, I fail to understand as to how the petitioner could succeed in contending that the first respondent is not the owner and consequently he is not liable to pay rent to him especially in the absence of any contra evidence or materials placed before the court below. 6. Even though a feeble attempt was made by the petitioner to make a claim of ownership in favour of the Trust which was made as a party second respondent in the eviction proceedings, nothing is available on record to show that any material was placed by the second respondent before the courts below to prove such claim of ownership. On the other hand, it appears that no separate counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent Trust except by stating that they are adopting the counter filed by the first respondent therein. Needless to say that any amount of pleading without there being material evidence to substantiate the same, cannot have any validity, however, crucial it may be. On the other hand, it appears that no separate counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent Trust except by stating that they are adopting the counter filed by the first respondent therein. Needless to say that any amount of pleading without there being material evidence to substantiate the same, cannot have any validity, however, crucial it may be. No doubt, a perusal of the list of documents referred to by the learned Rent Controller in his order shows that a copy of the sale deed dated 1.12.1960 was marked as Ex.R1 on the side of the respondent. But a perusal of the counter statement filed by the respondent does not refer about such document anywhere and even the orders passed by the Courts below would also show that no reliance seems to have been placed by the tenant on the particular document. Thus, in the absence of any pleading in respect of such document and in the absence of any argument advanced or any grounds raised by the tenant in the memorandum of grounds of appeal filed before the appellate authority in respect of such document, I have to only conclude that there are no materials placed by the tenant in support of his contention. 7. Thus, the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below would establish that the petitioner apart from committing wilful default has also denied the title of the landlord. When he miserably failed in such an attempt, the petitioner is liable to be evicted on the said ground also. The courts below have rightly considered all the facts and circumstances and found that the petitioner is liable to be evicted from the petition mentioned property. R.C.O.P. was filed in the year 2005 and the petitioner has dragged on the proceedings all these years upto filing of this Civil Revision Petition before this Court. As I have found that the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the courts below do not warrant any interference in the absence of any contra evidence or materials, I dismiss the Civil Revision Petition as devoid of merits. Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed. No costs.