Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2147 (MAD)

M. K. Balan (Deceased) v. R. Balasubramanian

2015-06-02

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2015
ORDER The tenants, who suffered an order of eviction on the ground of denial of title under Section 10(2)(i) (vii) and bonafide requirement for owner's occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, which was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, have approached this Court with the present Civil Revision Petitions. The respondent (tenant) in R.C.O.P.No.221 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore) is the petitioner in C.R.P.No.4029 of 2012. The respondent (tenant) in R.C.O.P.No.225 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif, Coimabtore) is the petitioner in C.R.P.No.4030 of 2012. 2. R.Balasubramaniam, the respondent in both the Civil Revision Petitions filed R.C.O.P.No.221 of 2005 against Balan (petitioner in C.R.P.No.4029 of 2012) and R.C.O.P.No.225 of 2005 against Vasu (petitioner in C.R.P.No.4030 of 2012), who are tenants in respect of different portions, for their eviction under Sections 10(2)(i)(vii) and Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Both the revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by the following common order. 3. In this order, the respondent in both the civil revision petitions shall be referred as Respondent/landlord and the petitioners in the civil revision petitions will be referred as petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No.4029 of 2012/tenant and the petitioner in C.R.P.No.4030 of 2012 respectively. 4. The arguments advanced by Mr.C.R.Prassannan, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the revision petitions and by Mr.R.T.Duraisamy, learned counsel for the respondent were heard and the materials available on record were also perused. 5. R.Balasubramaniam filed R.C.O.P. No.221 of 2005 and R.C.O.P. No.225 of 2005 against R.Balan and Vasu respectively, for their eviction on the ground of denial of title and also bonafide requirement for personal occupation. 5. R.Balasubramaniam filed R.C.O.P. No.221 of 2005 and R.C.O.P. No.225 of 2005 against R.Balan and Vasu respectively, for their eviction on the ground of denial of title and also bonafide requirement for personal occupation. The eviction petitions were resisted by the tenants contending that there was a dispute between R.Balasubramaniam and his mother Banumathi and sister Mahalakshmi; that they were making payment of rent for the respective portions (non-residential) in their occupation as tenants regularly without default till 31.08.1999; that since they received summons in the suit O.S.No.1272 of 2001, filed by R.Balasubramaniam, the respondent/ landlord claiming a right and share in the property against his mother Banumathi and sister Mahalakshmi and also sought for the relief of injunction against the tenants not to pay the rent to Banumathi, the said persons, namely Banumathi and Mahalakshmi should be impleaded as parties in the eviction petitions; that under such circumstances, they were seeking the leave of the Rent Controller to deposit the rent for the period starting from 01.09.1999 and that they were seeking such permission to deposit the rent by filing a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore. 6. After enquiry, the Rent Controller held the respondent/landlord to be entitled to an order of eviction on both grounds against both the revision petitioners. As against the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.221 of 2005, Balan, the petitioner in C.R.P.No.4029 of 2012 preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, namely the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in R.C.A.No.40 of 2011. Similarly, Vasu, the revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.4030 of 2012 challenged the order of eviction dated 11.08.2011 passed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.225 of 2005 by preferring an appeal in R.C.A.No.39 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore). 7. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, after hearing the appeals, by separate judgments and decrees dated 10.08.2012, dismissed both the appeals confirming the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller in both the R.C.O.Ps. As such, they are before this Court with these Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 8. It is an admitted fact that the revision petitioners in both the revisions are tenants in respect of the non-residential portions described in the description of property in the eviction petitions. As such, they are before this Court with these Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 8. It is an admitted fact that the revision petitioners in both the revisions are tenants in respect of the non-residential portions described in the description of property in the eviction petitions. The respondent claiming to be the owner of the said premises and landlord of the revision petitioners in respect of the said non-residential portions, chose to file the R.C.O.Ps for eviction of the revision petitioners on the following grounds: 1) Denial of title; and 2) Bonafide requirement for owner's occupation. 9. The revision petitioners / tenants have not chosen to deny and dispute the contention of the respondent/landlord that he requires the petition premises for his own use and occupation. On the other hand, they simply stated that the eviction petitions filed against them were not maintainable and no order of eviction could be passed without impleading Banumathi, the mother of the respondent and Mahalakshmi, the sister of the respondent. Such a plea was taken on the basis of their contention that there was a dispute regarding title to the petition premises which led to the filing of a suit by the respondent herein in O.S.No. 3743 of 2004 against his mother and sister; that the same made it impossible for the revision petitioners/tenants to fix the person to whom the rent had to be paid and that in view of the bonafide doubt entertained by them, they had to file applications before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, the notified authority for depositing the rent payable by them for the petition premises. 10. The evidence reveal that the suit filed by the respondent Balasubramaniam was one for a decree against his mother Banumathi for recovery of the net rent for a period of one year prior to the filing of the said suit, namely O.S.No.3743 of 2004 (Old No.O.S.No.1272 of 1999), for a permanent injunction against his mother not to collect the rent from the tenants and for a mandatory injunction against the tenants to pay the rent to him (Balasubramaniam, the respondent herein). When such a case came to be filed, in which the revision petitioners figured as defendants and a mandatory injunction had also been sought for against them to pay the rent to the respondent herein, they could have very well tendered the rent to the respondent herein in the said civil case itself. Even if it is assumed that the dispute between Balasubramaniam, the respondent herein and his mother Banumathi made the revision petitioners to feel that it was not safe to pay the rent to either of them as they were not sure as to who was entitled to receive the rent, they could have deposited the rent with the competent authority under Section 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act 1960 and intimated such deposit to the Rent Controller having jurisdiction. 11. In this case, what the revision petitioners did was to file petitions before the authorized officer, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore under Section 9(3) of the Act seeking leave to deposit the rent from 01.09.1999. The said petitions came to be filed in the months of March and April 2005, namely after committing default for nearly six years. The suit filed by the respondent Balasubramaniam came to be instituted in the year 1999 itself. It was decided in favour of the respondent herein on 17.08.2005 itself. Though an appeal came to be filed by Banumathi against the decree passed in the said suit, the appeal also came to be dismissed on 17.04.2007. Vasu and Balan, the revision petitioners, who simply kept quite from 1999, all of a sudden chose to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer on 16.03.2005 and April 2005 respectively seeking leave to deposit the arrears of rent from 01.09.1999, after they faced threat of eviction in R.C.O.P.Nos.221 of 2005 and 225 of 2005. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders in those petitions in Na.Ka.3582/05/A2 on 24.02.2009 and Na.ka.11414/05/A2 on 24.02.2009 respectively, directing the revision petitioners to deposit the rent under the Government Account "8443-Civil Deposit-Not bearing interest" "AA.Rev-Rev-Report-8443-00 101 - AA 000F". The Revenue Divisional Officer passed orders in those petitions in Na.Ka.3582/05/A2 on 24.02.2009 and Na.ka.11414/05/A2 on 24.02.2009 respectively, directing the revision petitioners to deposit the rent under the Government Account "8443-Civil Deposit-Not bearing interest" "AA.Rev-Rev-Report-8443-00 101 - AA 000F". It is obvious from records that the revision petitioners, even after the civil suit came to be disposed of, without obeying the decree passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.3743 of 2004, chose to proceed with the petitions filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the notified authority competent to receive rent under Section 9(3) of the Act, obtained orders granting permission to make such deposit even after the decree of the trial Court was confirmed by the lower appellate Court on the premise that a second appeal filed by Banumathi was in the unnumbered SR stage. 12. It is not the case of the revision petitioners that the decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.3743 of 2004 had been stayed by the appellate Court in A.S.No.6 of 2006. It is a fact not in dispute that the decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.3743 of 2004, as confirmed by the appellate Court in A.S.No.6 of 2006, was not stayed by this Court on the date on which the revision petitioners got orders from the Revenue Division Officer granting permission to deposit the rent. Section 9(3) of the Tamil Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 enables the tenant, who entertains a benefit of doubt as to the person entitled to receive the rent, to deposit such rent before the authority prescribed. But such authority shall be only the custodian of the rent deposited under such provision without any power to adjudicate upon as to who was entitled to receive the rent. The only course open to such authority is to receive the rent and it shall be the duty of the tenant, thus making a deposit with the prescribed authority, to submit a report to the Rent Controller stating the circumstances under which such deposit was made by him. Only in such an event, the tenant can continue to deposit the rent for the subsequent period before the same authority in the same manner until such doubt is removed or the dispute is settled by the decision of a competent Court or by a settlement between the parties. Only in such an event, the tenant can continue to deposit the rent for the subsequent period before the same authority in the same manner until such doubt is removed or the dispute is settled by the decision of a competent Court or by a settlement between the parties. Such a privilege to deposit the rent with the prescribed authority will come to an end once the Rent Controller makes an order under sub-section 4(b). 13. In this regard, till 25.01.2001, no authority was prescribed as the authority competent to receive the rent under Section 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. By G.O.Ms.43, Housing and Urban Development Department (Audit Department), dated 25.01.2001 alone, the Revenue Divisional Officers concerned in the respective District and Collector in Chennai City have been notified to be the prescribed authorities to receive deposit of rent under Section 9(3) of the Tamil Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The notification also states that the deposit shall be made in cash. Except receiving and keeping it for disposal in accordance with the order of the Rent Controller, the prescribed authority has no decision making power. The provision mandates that the tenant, who chooses to make such deposit, to submit a report to the Rent Controller who shall thereupon proceed to find out whether there is any bonafide dispute and direct deposit of rent until removal of the doubt and direct deposit of the rent with the said authority pending removal of the doubt or settlement of the dispute in case it is satisfied with the existence of such bonafide doubt or dispute. In case the Rent Controller is not so satisfied, the Rent Controller shall forthwith order payment of the amount deposited with the authority to the landlord. 14. The revision petitioners, being tenants, have not chosen to first deposit the amount with the authority and immediately submit a report to the Rent Controller to enable the Rent Controller to take a decision under Section 9(4) of the Tamil Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. On the other hand, thinking that the decision making authority was the prescribed authority, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, they filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 9(3), which is not at all necessary and kept it pending for nearly four years without making deposit. On the other hand, thinking that the decision making authority was the prescribed authority, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, they filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 9(3), which is not at all necessary and kept it pending for nearly four years without making deposit. The said act on the part of the revision petitioners will show that the revision petitioners were indulged in abuse of process. The very fact that the revision petitioners did not file any appeal against the decree granted in favour of the respondent herein and against the revision petitioners in O.S.No.3743 of 2004 for the relief of mandatory injunction directing them to pay rent to the respondent, will make it clear that the acts of the revision petitioners were not bonafide and they were not justified in seeking an order from the Revenue Divisional Officer after such dispute had been resolved by the civil Court. Even after the trial Court's decree was confirmed by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.6 of 2006, the revision petitioners did not make payment of rent to the respondent. On the other hand, they were bent upon getting an order from the Revenue Divisional Officer, who is not competent to pass such an order, without even bringing the matter to the notice of the Rent Controller by submitting a report as contemplated under Section 9(3) of the Tamil Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The ingenious method adopted by the revision petitioners to take sides with the mother of the respondent will make it cleat that their denial of title was not bonafide. 15. It is also a fact admitted that the petition premises were part of the properties which came to the respondent in a registered partition with his sister Mahalakshmi. Banumathi, the mother of the respondent who claimed to be entitled to 1/3rd share did fail in her attempt in the original suit O.S.No.3743 of 2004 and also in the appeal A.S.No.6 of 2006. Thereafter, before any second appeal filed by her could be numbered and a delay excuse petition for condoning the delay in preferring the second appeal was pending, they manipulated to get an order from an authority incompetent to pass such an order, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer in Na.Ka.3582/05/A2 and Na.ka.11414/05/A2 dated 24.02.2009. Thereafter, before any second appeal filed by her could be numbered and a delay excuse petition for condoning the delay in preferring the second appeal was pending, they manipulated to get an order from an authority incompetent to pass such an order, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer in Na.Ka.3582/05/A2 and Na.ka.11414/05/A2 dated 24.02.2009. The said orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer can even be stated to be a nullity as it is violative and contrary to the decree passed by a competent civil Court. Under such circumstances alone, both the Courts below rendered a concurrent finding that the revision petitioners were liable to be evicted under Section 10(2)(i) (vii) of the Tamil Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on the ground of denial of title of landlord, the respondent herein. There is no scope for interfering with the finding that the denial of title was not bonafide and that the revision petitioners were liable to be evicted on the ground of denial of title of the landlord. The revision petitioners have not disputed the contention of the respondent that he bonafide requires for his own use. There is no plea to the effect that any of the conditions for seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement for own occupation is absent. Hence order of eviction on both grounds deserves confirmation. 16. This Court does not find any defect, infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the decrees passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its powers of revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. There is no merit in the Civil Revision Petitions and both the Civil Revision Petitions are deserve to be dismissed with costs. 17. Accordingly, C.R.P (PD) Nos.4029 and 4030 of 2012 are dismissed with costs. Connected M.Ps are also dismissed.