Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4128 (MAD)

Vasantha Ramakrishnan v. Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi

2014-11-05

K.KALYANASUNDARAM

body2014
Judgment 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority/VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.C.A.No.632 of 2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- (a) The landlords, who are the petitioners in this revision, filed R.C.O.P.No.604 of 2009 before the learned Rent Controller/XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, for eviction of the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi/tenant on the grounds of willful default and for own use and occupation. The petitioners have contended that the first petitioner had become the absolute owner of the petition property by way of Gift Settlement Deed dated 08.08.1973, registered as Document No.2884/1973 by her father (Late) C.Gopal; that the first petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the property from the date of settlement deed; that it was acted upon immediately and Patta was also issued in the name of the first petitioner in the year 1982 by the Tahsildar, Egmore-Nungambakkam Taluk and the property was assessed in the name of the first petitioner and she was paying property tax, Water and Sewerage tax for the said property. (b) It is further contended that out of love and affection, the first petitioner had settled the property in favour of the second and third petitioners retaining the life interest in the schedule property by Settlement Deed dated 08.10.2003. When the petitioners wanted to induct a tenant in the schedule property, the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi, who was the sister of the first petitioner, approached her to occupy the premises as a tenant pleading that she wanted to stay in the premises for a short time as she was constructing a new house. Hence, the first petitioner agreed to let out the premises to the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi on a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- in December 2005. The deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi was paying rent in the account of the first petitioner in State Bank of India, Chinmaya Nagar Branch in Account No.10222498022 till March 2006 and thereafter from November 2006, she has deposited the rent in the account of the second petitioner in M.C.C. Bank, Chinmaya Nagar Branch, Chennai, in Account No.3672. The deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi was paying rent in the account of the first petitioner in State Bank of India, Chinmaya Nagar Branch in Account No.10222498022 till March 2006 and thereafter from November 2006, she has deposited the rent in the account of the second petitioner in M.C.C. Bank, Chinmaya Nagar Branch, Chennai, in Account No.3672. It is further contended that when the petitioners require the premises for their own use and occupation, the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi/tenant has not handed over vacant possession and also failed to pay rent from July 2008 till February 2009. Hence, the petition. 3. Resisting the petition, the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi filed counter alleging that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the suit filed for partition before this Court in C.S.No.1015 of 2008 is pending. The deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi has also denied the execution of the settlement deed in favour of the first petitioner. 4. Before the learned Rent Controller, the first petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.14. The deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi examined herself as R.W.1, but she has not produced any documents. Exs.C.1 and C.2 were marked. 5. The learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi was a tenant and she has committed willful default in payment of rent and the requirement of the premises for own use and occupation is bona fide and allowed the eviction petition. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller, the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi/tenant filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.632 of 2010 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority/VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller by allowing the appeal. Challenging the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the present civil revision petition is filed. 7. Pending the Civil Revision Petition, the tenant viz., Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi died. Hence, her legal representatives were impleaded as respondents. 8. Heard Mr.K.Balamurali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Ponnusamy, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records. 9. Challenging the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the present civil revision petition is filed. 7. Pending the Civil Revision Petition, the tenant viz., Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi died. Hence, her legal representatives were impleaded as respondents. 8. Heard Mr.K.Balamurali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Ponnusamy, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have produced as many as 14 documents to show that originally the first petitioner was the absolute owner of the property by virtue of Gift Settlement Deed marked as Ex.P.2 and the petitioners 2 and 3 became the owners of the property as per the settlement deed executed by the first petitioner in their favour through documents Exs.P.5 and P.6. The learned counsel further submitted that after the execution of Ex.P.2-Gift Settlement Deed, the first petitioner had obtained planning permission under Ex.P.3, dated 25.03.1978 and thereafter constructed the petition property; that the first petitioner had mortgaged the property through Ex.P.13 and Exs.C.1 and C.2 would establish the fact that the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi/tenant was remitting rent in the accounts of the petitioners 1 and 2. The learned counsel also submitted that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, without considering the material evidence available on records, has reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller holding that the suit filed for partition is pending and the petitioners have not produced any documentary evidence to establish their jural relationship. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the categorical admission of the first petitioner would show that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi; for maintaining the eviction petition, the onus is heavily on the petitioners but they have not produced any material to prove the relationship of the parties. It is further submitted that the petitioners claimed right over the petition property on the basis of the settlement deeds-Exs.P.2, P.5 and P.6, but the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi and other legal heirs of the executor of the settlement deed have filed a comprehensive suit for partition and therefore the petitioners cannot claim any right on the basis of settlement deeds Exs.P.2, P.5 and P.6. It is further contended that the mother of the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi was residing in the petition premises till her death in the year 2007 and therefore the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi and other legal heirs filed the suit in the year 2008. 11. It is seen from the records that the first petitioner claims title as per the Gift Settlement Deed-Ex.P.2 dated 08.08.1973. Admittedly, the petition property was purchased by the father of the first petitioner viz., C.Gopal through Ex.P.1-Sale Deed dated 11.10.1971. In Ex.P.2-Gift Settlement Deed, the original owner referred that the property as self acquired property of the Donar. Further, one Mr.Manohar, who is the brother of the first petitioner and one Mr.Y.Ravi Shankar have signed as witnesses in the gift deed. On the basis of the Gift Settlement Deed-Ex.P.2, mutation of revenue records have taken place. It is further noted that the first petitioner had obtained planning permission from the local body and constructed the building. 12. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi was inducted as a tenant in the year 2005 and she was remitting rents in the accounts of the petitioners 1 and 2 in the State Bank of India and M.C.C. Bank. When the said fact was disputed by the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi, documents Exs.C.1 and C.2 were marked to show that the rent was deposited by the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi in the accounts of the petitioners 1 and 2. The petitioners have also mortgaged the property to obtain loan. The petitioners have produced the documents to establish their absolute title over the petition property and the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi was inducted as a tenant only in the year 2005. 13. The learned Rent Controller, on appreciation of evidence, had come to the conclusion that the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi is a tenant in the petition premises and she has committed willful default in payment of rent. P.W.1 has pleaded in the eviction petition that the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi/tenant wanted to occupy the premises only for a short time. The Court has to consider the pleading, oral evidence of P.W.1 and the documentary evidence produced by her to decide the jural relationship of the parties. P.W.1 has pleaded in the eviction petition that the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi/tenant wanted to occupy the premises only for a short time. The Court has to consider the pleading, oral evidence of P.W.1 and the documentary evidence produced by her to decide the jural relationship of the parties. P.W.1 has categorically deposed that the deceased Lakshmi @ Bagyalakshmi is a tenant and she was paying rent in the accounts of the petitioners 1 and 2, which was also corroborated by the documents C.1 and C.2. However, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority disbelieved the case of the petitioners due to the pendency of the partition suit and the admission of P.W.1 that there is no documentary evidence to prove that her sister was a tenant. The Appellate Authority has not even considered the other relevant and material evidence produced by the petitioners. 14. In [Pechimuthu Versus Meenakshisundaram], this Court has held that merely because the partition suit has been filed, it cannot be concluded that the respondent has joint right and entitlement to the petition mentioned property. 15. In the case on hand, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has upset the finding of the learned Rent Controller mainly on the point of pendency of the partition suit. In my considered view, the case of the petitioners cannot be thrown away on the ground of pendency of the suit. The finding of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is perverse for non consideration of the material evidence available on record. Hence, the order impugned in the revision is set aside. 16. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned Rent Controller/XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.C.O.P.No.604 of 2009, dated 20.08.2010 is restored. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.