Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3040 (MAD)

V. J. Padmini v. P. R. Prabhakar

2013-08-26

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
Judgment : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 16.04.2013 passed in E.A. No.65 of 2013 in E.P.No.217 of 2012 in R.C.O.P.No.72 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ambattur. 2. The petitioner is the tenant. She is aggrieved against the order rejecting her application filed under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code wherein and whereby she prayed for dismissal of the above Execution Petition filed by the respondent/landlord. 3. The respondent herein as the landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.72 of 2009 seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of willful default. On 25.01.2012, the the learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition and directed the petitioner to handover the vacant possession of the petition premises to the respondent herein. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.15 of 2012. 4. During the pendency of the above appeal, the respondent/landlord filed an application in I.A.No.119 of 2012 under Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act seeking for a direction to the petitioner/tenant to pay arrears of rent of Rs.1,07,500/-being rental dues from August 2008 to March 2012. In the said application, the Rent Control Appellate Authority passed an order on 29.08.2012 directing the petitioner herein to deposit a sum of Rs.1,07,500/-towards arrears of rent from August 2008 to March 2013 into the Court on or before 12.09.2012. It is made clear in the said order that failure to deposit the said arrears would result in stopping further proceedings in the appeal and an order of eviction will be passed. Accordingly, the matter was called on 13.09.2012 by the Appellate Court for reporting compliance. As the conditional order was not complied with, the Rent Control Appellate Authority passed a final order thereby further proceedings in the appeal was stopped and eviction was ordered. 5. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein preferred Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.4733 of 2012 before this Court. It is contended by the petitioner in the above Civil Revision Petition that the respondent herein was not the owner of the petition premises and he was fraudulently collecting the rents from her. It is also contended that there was no agreement between the petitioner and the respondent and the respondent is not the landlord. 6. It is contended by the petitioner in the above Civil Revision Petition that the respondent herein was not the owner of the petition premises and he was fraudulently collecting the rents from her. It is also contended that there was no agreement between the petitioner and the respondent and the respondent is not the landlord. 6. The learned single Judge of this Court considered the said submissions and observed at Paragraph No.10 of his order that he was unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner therein. The learned Judge rejected the contentions of the petitioner and found that the contentions raised by the petitioner were rightly negatived by the Court below on evidence. Accordingly, the learned Judge dismissed the said Civil Revision Petition by his order dated 09.01.2013. 7. It appears that the said order has become final and conclusive as no further appeal is filed by the tenant before the Apex Court. However, the tenant filed an application in E.A.No.65 of 2013 under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking to reject the Execution Petition on the ground that the decree passed in the R.C.O.P. was null and void and not executable in view of the fact that the respondent herein was neither the land lord nor the power of attorney holder to file the R.C.O.P.,. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent was only a land broker and land grabber and the decree was obtained by misrepresentation and therefore, he was not entitled to maintain the Execution Petition. It is the contention of the tenant that the decree granted in the R.C.O.P. cannot be executed. The Court below negtived the said contention by holding that the points raised by the petitioner in Section 47 Application had already been raised and decided by the Court in the Original Rent Control Proceedings, apart from the fact that the Court cannot go beyond the decree passed by the Rent Control Court which had reached its finality. It is also observed therein that once the grounds raised by the petitioner were finally decided by a competent Court no similar questions in respect of the executability of the decree would arise for consideration. Aggrieved against the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed before this Court. 8. It is also observed therein that once the grounds raised by the petitioner were finally decided by a competent Court no similar questions in respect of the executability of the decree would arise for consideration. Aggrieved against the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed before this Court. 8. Heard Mr.P.Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials placed before this Court. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the decree passed in the Rent Control Original Petition is not an executable one as the same is null and void on the sole ground that the respondent herein is not the landlord and is not having any power to file the Execution Petition. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the question can be considered by the Executing Court while exercising power under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is also submitted by him that when the decree is nullity, the Court can go into the said issue and decide it in an application filed under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. Alternatively, the learned counsel pleaded for permitting the petitioner to deposit the rent into the Court by extending the time granted already. 10. The petitioner herein as the tenant suffered a decree of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No.72 of 2009 dated 25.01.2012. Perusal of the order passed by the Rent Controller wold show that he has raised three issues while deciding the eviction petition, out of which, issues (i) and (ii) are as follows:- "(i) Whether the petitioner is competent to file this application? (ii) Whether there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the tenant?" After elaborate discussion of the facts and circumstances, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the respondent herein, who is the petitioner therein, was competent to maintain the eviction petition and that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent exists. Thereafter, while considering the third issue, namely, (iii) whether the respondent committed willful default in payment of rent to the petitioner, the learned Rent Controller found that the petitioner herein committed willful default and consequently, ordered eviction. The said order was challenged by way of an appeal in R.C.A.No.15 of 2012 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 11. Thereafter, while considering the third issue, namely, (iii) whether the respondent committed willful default in payment of rent to the petitioner, the learned Rent Controller found that the petitioner herein committed willful default and consequently, ordered eviction. The said order was challenged by way of an appeal in R.C.A.No.15 of 2012 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 11. Pending the appeal, the respondent/landlord filed an application in I.A.No.119 of 2012 under Section 11(3) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, seeking for a direction to the tenant to deposit the entire arrears of rent as already stated supra. An order came to be passed therein on 29.8.2012 whereby the petitioner herein was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,07,500/- on or before 12.09.2012 failing which, it was made clear therein that the proceedings in the appeal would be stopped and an order of eviction would be passed. Admittedly, the said amount was not deposited by the petitioner. Consequently, when the matter was called on 13.09.2012, the appellate authority by noting that the conditional order was not complied with, has passed a final order in R.C.A., thereby ordering eviction. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in C.R.P.(NPD) No.4733 of 2012 wherein an order came to be passed on 09.01.2013 dismissing the above Civil Revision Petition. 12. At Paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of his order, the learned Judge of this Court has considered the very same issues now raised by the petitioner in the Application filed under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code and found as follows:- "9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an attempt to reargue the matter before this court by raising all the contentions that were raised before the Rent Control Authority by the tenant. He contended that the petitioner who had filed the Rent Control Proceedings was not the landlord and he was only a broker and he was fraudulently collecting the rent from the tenant and therefore, on coming to know that he was not the right person to collect the rent, the tenant did not pay the rent. But, he adds that the tenant was prepared to pay the rent into the Court. But, he adds that the tenant was prepared to pay the rent into the Court. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant, the non-payment of the rent could not be considered as willful and the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority which is impugned in the Civil Revision Petition that the tenant had committed willful default is unsustainable both in law and on facts warranting interference by this Court. 10. I am unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein. A perusal of the order passed by the Rent Control Authority in detail would show that the Rent Control Authority in due consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after evaluating the same in the proper perspective has categorically held that the petitioner who had filed the Revision Petition is an authorised person to manage the property including collection of rent and filing a petition for eviction. The letter of authorisation issued by the landlord in favour of the petitioner was also marked as an exhibit before the court below. Further more, the Rent Control Authority has also found that after having paid the rent from the date of inception till August 2008 to the petitioner without any demur, has raised objections only in the month of August 2008 that the petitioner was not competent to collect the rent and he was only a broker and so on. These contentions were rightly negatived by the Court below on evidence. Therefore, on fact and in law, a reasoned finding has been rendered by the Rent Controller rejecting all all the contentions that are being raised by the learned counsel appearing for the tenant before this Court. Hence, after having suffered an order of eviction on the ground of willful default and after not having complied with the conditional order passed by the Appellate Court to pay the rental arrears, the tenant has no legs to stand before this court in arguing the revision. As such, both in law and on facts, I do not find any merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same deserves to be dismissed." 13. As such, both in law and on facts, I do not find any merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same deserves to be dismissed." 13. Thus, a perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in the above said Civil Revision Petition makes it abundantly clear that the present contentions raised by the petitioner were already raised by her before this Court in the above said Civil Revision Petition and this Court had rejected the said contention by holding that the Rent Control Appellate Authority rightly negatived the contentions raised by the petitioner with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant. It is also observed by the learned Judge that the respondent herein was an authorised person to manage the property including collection of rent and filing of eviction petition. It is further observed therein that the letter of authorisation issued by the landlord in favour of the respondent herein was also marked as an exhibit before the court below. The learned Judge thus observed that the petitioner herein sufferred an order of eviction on the ground of willful default and not having complied with the conditional order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, had no legs to stand before this court in arguing the revision. 14. The said order, having not been further challenged by the petitioner, has become final and conclusive and is binding on the petitioner. When such being the categorical observation made by this Court in respect of the very same issues raised by the petitioner, I fail to understand as to how the petitioner is entitled to raise the same issues in an application filed under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court below has rightly rejected the said application holding that the issues had already been decided by the competent Court which has reached finality. Therefore, I find that this Proceedings is filed by the petitioner only to drag on the eviction process so that she can prolong the eviction proceedings. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, alternatively, sought for permission to deposit the rent into the Court by extending the time granted already. Therefore, I find that this Proceedings is filed by the petitioner only to drag on the eviction process so that she can prolong the eviction proceedings. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, alternatively, sought for permission to deposit the rent into the Court by extending the time granted already. Once this Court has rejected the Civil Revision Petition filed by the petitioner in the earlier round and when the said order has become final and conclusive, this request cannot be entertained as the same is not maintainable. Therefore, the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for depositing the rent is rejected. Accordingly, I find no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.