Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1589 (MAD)

M. P. Subburaman v. S. Raja

2016-04-20

G.CHOCKALINGAM

body2016
JUDGMENT : G. Chockalingam, J. The Revisions are directed against the Order and Decreetal Order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Devakottai, in R.C.A, Nos. 17 & 18 of 1990 dated 27.11.1992 reversing the Order and Decretal Order of the learned Rent Controller, Devakottai in R.C.O.P Nos.32 & 33 of 1989 dated 27.11.1990. 2. Brief facts in the cases are as follows: In C.R.P. No. 2020 of 1993, the Civil Revision Petitioner is the Landlord and the Respondent is the Tenant. In C.R.P. No. 2021 of 1993, the Civil Revision Petitioner is the Landlord and deceased Kanagasabapahy was the Tenant and the other Respondents are Legal Heirs of the deceased Tenant. 2(ii) The Suit Scheduled property was purchased from one Janakiammal and after purchase, Janakiammal has instructed the Tenants to pay the Rent to the Petitioner. But the Tenant has not chosen to pay the rent from April 1989 and they have committed wilful default to pay the rent. 2(iii) Further, it is pleaded that the present building was very old one. The Landlord was directed by the Municipality to demolish the old building and construct the new building and obtained License from the Competent Authority and he has acquired Building Plan for reconstruction. The Tenants have objected all the allegations made by the Landlord. There is no Statutory Notice issued regarding the transfer of ownership from the previous Landlord to the present Civil Revision Petitioner. There is no default or wilful default and there is no necessity for demolition and reconstruction and the said pleading is not true. Considering the rival submissions made on by both Tenant and the Landlord, the Rent Controller ordered eviction on both grounds on 27.11.1990, against which, the Tenants preferred Appeals. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, after analysing the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the Landlord is not entitled to eviction and allowed both the Appeals Against the Orders of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the Landlord. 2(iv). It is admitted by either side that the present Civil Revision Petitioner, Kanagasabapathy, the deceased Respondent and one Raja were carrying on business in the same building. It is also admitted that the Tenant is paying Rs,70 per month. 2(iv). It is admitted by either side that the present Civil Revision Petitioner, Kanagasabapathy, the deceased Respondent and one Raja were carrying on business in the same building. It is also admitted that the Tenant is paying Rs,70 per month. The Respondent used to pay the rent to the Petitioner and obtained Receipts from the Petitioner even when Janaki Ammal was the Owner of the property. It is clearly admitted that Janakiammal was in habit of issuing Receipts to her Tenants. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Landlord would contend that the Appellate Authority erred in holding that the change of ownership from Janaki Ammal to the Petitioner by Sale Deed dated 1.4.1987 was not brought to their knowledge. He would further contend that Tenant-Landlord relationship was admitted in the evidence on the basis of the transfer of property from Janakiammal to the present Petitioner. Further, the Appellate Court has failed to consider the fact that one of the Tenants, stated in his evidence that transfer of ownership from Janakiammal to the present Petitioner was informed to another Tenant also. The Appellate Court has failed to consider the fact that during the pendency of the proceedings the Respondent did not attempt to pay the rent either to Janaki Ammal directly of to the Petitioner directly and accumulated the arrears for the unduly long period of about 20 months. 4. The Petitioner prayed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the Petition property and the Appellate Authority grievously erred in dismissing the said Application. The Appellate Authority after considering the admitted facts that the Petitioner was having a number of business in Devakottai, ought to have come to the conclusion that the Petitioner got means to demolish and reconstruct the Petition premises. The observation that the Petitioner has got a Bank balance of Rs.30,000 only as against the estimated cost of Rs.2,00,000 and hence, the intention is not genuine is untenable. He prayed for setting aside the Order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 5. The learned Counsel for the Respondents/Tenants would contend that after elaborate discussions, the Rent Control Appellate Authority came to the correct conclusion that the Civil Revision Petitioner has not informed the transfer of ownership to the Tenants and hence, there is no wilfull default committed by the Tenants. 5. The learned Counsel for the Respondents/Tenants would contend that after elaborate discussions, the Rent Control Appellate Authority came to the correct conclusion that the Civil Revision Petitioner has not informed the transfer of ownership to the Tenants and hence, there is no wilfull default committed by the Tenants. Further, the Landlord has not shown bonafideness to demolish the building and construct a new building and he has only intention to vacate the Petitioner from the Scheduled building. There is no illegality or infirmity in the Order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, which do not warrant interference by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petitions. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. 7. It is an admitted fact that on 1.4.1987, Janakiammal sold the entire property to the present civil Revision Petitioner-Subburaman under Ex.B1-Sale Deed. It is also subsequently mentioned that he has handed over the possession to the Tenants. As per Sale Deed-Ex.B1 the Civil Revision Petitioner has become the Owner of the Scheduled building and he is entitled to enjoy the property. Further in this case, PW1-Raman Chettiar in chief-examination has stated as follows: XXX XXX XXX 8. In view of the above, it is clear that on the date on which Janakiammal sold the property to the present Petitioner, Janakiammal and the present Petitioner immediately informed this fact to the Respondents/Tenants and the Petitioner is also a Collecting Agent for the Scheduled building. Nothing suggested on the side of the Civil Revision Petitioner to disbelieve the evidence of PW2. The fact that Janakiammal and the Civil Revision Petitioner have informed the Tenant immediately on the date itself by PW2 in the presence of PW4 & PW1. Hence, the contention of the Respondents/Tenants that they have no knowledge about the transfer of property is not sustainable. 9. Further, even according to the Tenants, Janakiammal was in habit of issuing printed Receipts. PW2 has also received Receipts, if at all for argument's sake, the Tenants in a belief that Janakiammal is only Owner of the property, he has to pay the rent every month to Janakiammal but he has not paid for several months. He has attempted to create some records to show that once in two or three months he was paying rent in the later stage But the said records cannot be believable. He has attempted to create some records to show that once in two or three months he was paying rent in the later stage But the said records cannot be believable. Hence, the Civil Revision Petitioner issued Notice to the Tenant and reply Notices were also sent Subsequently, Janakiammal has issued Notice through Advocate informing to pay the rent to the Respondents. Tenants have not paid rent to the Landlord in spite of information of transfer of ownership to the Civil Revision Petitioner given by Janakiammal. Though Notice was sent, they have not paid the rent. But they issued Reply Notices. They are not ready and willing to pay the arrears of rent from 1.4.1987 to the Civil Revision Petitioner and hence, the Tenant has committed wilful default in the Scheduled building. 10. In the Money Order Coupon, there is no mentioning about return and if at all they paid rent from 1.4.1987 to 31.11.1990 for 20 months they have to produce documents or Receipts issued to the Tenants and there is no such document was produced. The Tenant-Kanagasabapathy had produced a Letter, which was returned with a Demand Draft, but he has not produced Postal Receipt for the same. Even after the same was returned, he has not paid any rent. In view of the above, it is clear that the Tenants are not paying rent regularly. However, they created documents to show that they were paying rent. The Rent Control Appellate Authority ought to have seen that it was the bounden duty of the Tenant to seek the Landlord and tender the rent. The Appellate Authority erred in holding that the Respondent was not guilty of wilful default on the ground flat he was not put on Notice about the change of ownership. Therefore, it is clear that they have created wilful default in paying rent. The Rent Control Appellate Authority without considering the facts, came to the conclusion that the Tenants have not committed wilful default, which is erroneous one and not maintainable and liable to be set aside. 11. This Court perused the entire records and evidences adduced on either side. The building in question is required by the Landlord for demolition and reconstruction. It is also proved on the side of the Petitioner have he has other business and cash in hand of Rs. 20,000. 11. This Court perused the entire records and evidences adduced on either side. The building in question is required by the Landlord for demolition and reconstruction. It is also proved on the side of the Petitioner have he has other business and cash in hand of Rs. 20,000. It is also not disputed on the side of the Respondent that the Landlord have no source and fluids to construct new building. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the requirement of the Landlord is bona fide and he is entitle to evict the Respondent on the ground of demolition and reconstruction also. Hence, the Order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in rejecting the claim of the Landlord is liable to be set aside. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the Order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. Devakottai in R.C.A. Nos. 17 & 18 of 1990, dated 27.11.1992 are set aside and the Order of the learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. Nos. 32 & 33 of 1989, dated 27.11.1990 are confirmed. Three months' time is granted to the Tenants to hand over the possession to the Landlord. No costs. C.R.Ps. Allowed - No Costs.