Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1922 (MAD)

Ganesan v. Anthonyappa

2017-07-10

T.RAVINDRAN

body2017
ORDER : The tenant is the revision petitioner. 2. The respondent/landlord has filed the eviction petition against the revision petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.28 of 2002 on two grounds i.e., willful default and denial of title. 3. In short, according to the case of the respondent/landlord, the petition schedule property belonged to him, he having purchased the same from Henry Joel Kanakasabai on 29.01.1999 and the revision petitioner had accepted the title of the respondent and agreed to pay the monthly rent in a sum of Rs.600/- and it is agreed that the revision petitioner should pay the rent from 01.02.1999 and inasmuch as the revision petitioner had committed default in payment of rent from April, 1999 onwards, it is the case of the respondent that he had sent a legal notice to the revision petitioner and to the same, the revision petitioner sent a reply containing false allegations and in the reply notice, the revision petitioner denied the title of the respondent/landlord and in such view of the matter, according to the respondent/landlord, he has been necessitated to lay the rent control original petition against the revision petitioner/tenant. 4. Briefly stated, according to the case of the revision petitioner/tenant, the respondent is not the owner of the petition schedule property and the revision petitioner's father had taken land-lease from Henry Joel Kanakasabai and with his permission, it is also the case of the revision petitioner, that a superstructure had been built up in the said property and accordingly, he had been residing therein by paying tax etc., and there is no landlord - tenant relationship between the respondent and the revision petitioner and it is false to state that the revision petitioner had admitted to pay monthly rent to the respondent/landlord in a sum of Rs.600/- from 01.02.1999 and that he had committed wilful default from April 1999 onwards and it is the further case of the revision petitioner that he is entitled to the benefit of City Tenants Protection Act and therefore, the rent control original petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. In support of the case of the respondent/landlord, P.W.1 has been examined and Exs.P1 to P6 have been marked and on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant R.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined and Exs.R1 and R2 have been marked. 6. 5. In support of the case of the respondent/landlord, P.W.1 has been examined and Exs.P1 to P6 have been marked and on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant R.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined and Exs.R1 and R2 have been marked. 6. The Rent Controller, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the respective parties, agreed with the case of the respondent/landlord and accordingly, ordered the rent control original petition. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner/tenant preferred the appeal in R.C.A.No.18 of 2003. The Rent Control Appellate Authority also on a consideration of the rival contentions of both parties, confirmed the order of the Rent Controller. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 7. The revision petitioner/tenant has taken the main plea that the respondent/landlord is not the owner of the petition schedule property. Further, according to the revision petitioner, even during the days of his father, the land-lease had been taken in respect of the petition schedule property from Henry Joel Kanakasabai and thereafter, with his permission a superstructure had been put up in the said property and therefore, according to the revision petitioner, it is only the revision petitioner, who is the owner of the superstructure as such and the respondent is not entitled to claim any title in respect of the petition schedule property and even prior to the alleged purchase of the petition schedule property by the revision petitioner from Henry Joel Kanakasabai, it is only the revision petitioner, who had been in occupation of the petition schedule property by putting up a superstructure thereon and therefore, according to the revision petitioner, there is no landlord - tenant relationship between the respondent and the revision petitioner and therefore, there is no question of payment of rent to the respondent as putforth by the respondent and therefore, according to the revision petitioner, the rent control original petition laid by the respondent/landlord is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the light of the above case of the revision petitioner, it is found that the respondent/landlord having come forward with the case that he is the owner of the petition schedule property and that the revision petitioner is a tenant under him in respect of the said property, the respondent has to prima facie establish the said case. 8. In the light of the above case of the revision petitioner, it is found that the respondent/landlord having come forward with the case that he is the owner of the petition schedule property and that the revision petitioner is a tenant under him in respect of the said property, the respondent has to prima facie establish the said case. With reference to the above case of the respondent, it is found that the copy of the sale deed executed by Henry Joel Kanakasabai has been marked as Ex.P1. From a perusal of the same, it could be seen that the original owner Henry Joel Kanakasabai had alienated the property in favour of the respondent. Both parties are not in dispute that the original owner of the property is Henry Joel Kanakasabai. 9. As adverted above, the revision petitioner has specifically pleaded that his father had taken the land-lease from Henry Joel Kanakasabai and with his permission, a superstructure had also been put up in the property and thus, the revision petitioner claims title to the petition schedule property. However, as regards the above case of the revision petitioner, it is found that there is absolutely no evidence with reference to the same. As rightly found by the Courts below, the documents marked as Exs.R1 and R2 do not in any manner substantiate the above case of the revision petitioner, in particular, Ex.R2 being the notice sent by Tuticorin Municipality would not by itself be sufficient to hold that the superstructure put up in the petition schedule property belonged to the revision petitioner as putforth by him. Therefore, the plea taken by the revision petitioner that his father had taken the land-lease from Henry Joel Kanakasabai and with his permission, the superstructure had been put up by him as such cannot be countenanced. Further, the above case of the revision petitioner also stands belied by another factor. As seen supra, it is not in dispute that Henry Joel Kanakasabai was the original owner of the property involved in this case. Further, the above case of the revision petitioner also stands belied by another factor. As seen supra, it is not in dispute that Henry Joel Kanakasabai was the original owner of the property involved in this case. It is found and also not disputed that Henry Joel Kanakasabai has preferred rent control original petition against the revision petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.46 of 1989 and in the said proceedings marked as Ex.P4, it has been held that the petition schedule property belonged to Henry Joel Kanakasabai and that the revision petitioner is a tenant in respect of the said property under him. Therefore, when it is held in R.C.O.P.No.46 of 1989 that the revision petitioner had been a tenant under Henry Joel Kanakasabai, his case is that his father had taken land-lease from Henry Joel Kanakasabai and that with his permission the superstructure had been put up in the property as such cannot be accepted in any manner. No doubt, R.C.O.P.No.46 of 1989 had come to be dismissed. However, as rightly found by the Court below R.C.O.P. No. 46 of 1989 had come to be dismissed on the footing that inasmuch as the revision petitioner had been granted permission to remain in the schedule mentioned property till 31.12.1990 by an arrangement entered into between the erstwhile landlord and the revision petitioner, it is found that on that score, the above said rent control original petition came to be dismissed. 10. In the light of the above factual position, which is also not disputed, it is found that when the revision petitioner had accepted the tenancy under Henry Joel Kanakasabai and when it is found that the respondent had purchased the petition schedule property from Henry Joel Kanakasabai, the real owner, it is made clear by the respondent that he is the owner of the said property and accordingly, the revision petitioner had attorned the tenancy in his favour and agreed to pay the monthly rent to him as pleaded by him. Both the Courts below have rightly found that the revision petitioner is only a tenant under the respondent and accordingly, held that the respondent had established the landlord - tenant relationship between himself and the revision petitioner. 11. Both the Courts below have rightly found that the revision petitioner is only a tenant under the respondent and accordingly, held that the respondent had established the landlord - tenant relationship between himself and the revision petitioner. 11. In the light of the foregoing reasons, when the revision petitioner has not established his case of ownership of the petition schedule property as such by adducing acceptable evidence, on the other hand, when it is found that he had been a tenant under the erstwhile owner and when it is found that the respondent purchased the property from the erstwhile owner and accordingly, the tenancy had been attorned in favour of the respondent, the contention of the revision petitioner that there is no landlord - tenant relationship between the respondent and him cannot be accepted in any manner. 12. Inasmuch as the revision petitioner despite being a tenant under the respondent had chosen to deny his title wilfully by setting up a title in himself and when the said plea of the revision petitioner has not been established in any manner, on the other hand, when it is found that the respondent had established his case beyond any doubt on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on his behalf, it is found that the Courts below have rightly held that the revision petitioner willfully denied the title of the respondent and as such on that ground, the revision petitioner is liable to be evicted from the petition schedule property. 13. The respondent had established the landlord - tenant relationship between himself and the revision petitioner. According to the respondent, the revision petitioner had committed wilful default from April, 1999 onwards. As regards the case of the wilful default projected by the respondent, the only defence taken by the revision petitioner is that inasmuch as he is not a tenant under the respondent, there is no question of any wilful default in payment of rent as projected by the petitioner. On the other hand, when the landlord - tenant relationship has been proved by the respondent, it is found that the revision petitioner had committed wilful default from April, 1999 onwards as pleaded by the respondent. Accordingly, it is noted that the respondent had also issued the legal notice marked as Ex.P2 and to the same as seen above, the revision petitioner has sent a reply containing false allegations. Accordingly, it is noted that the respondent had also issued the legal notice marked as Ex.P2 and to the same as seen above, the revision petitioner has sent a reply containing false allegations. When the false allegations set out in the reply notice, the same also having been pleaded in the counter and having not been established, it is found that the revision petitioner has committed wilful default in the payment of rent as pleaded by the respondent. Therefore, it is found that the Courts below have rightly found that the revision petitioner had committed wilful default in payment of rent and on that ground also he is liable to be evicted from the petition schedule property. 14. Inasmuch as the revision petitioner has failed to establish that he is the owner of the superstructure as such or that he has put up the superstructure with the permission of the erstwhile land owner, it is found that his plea that he is entitled to the benefit of City Tenants Protection Act also cannot be countenanced. 15. In this civil revision petition, the respondent has preferred an application in C.M.P. (MD) No.4462 of 2016 under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., for the reception of additional evidence. No counter has been filed by the revision petitioner in the said application. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as detailed above, it is found that the documents, which are sought to be produced as additional evidence, are not germane for the disposal of the civil revision petition. That apart, it is also found that the respondent has not satisfied the criteria outlined in Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., for the reception of additional evidence at the stage of civil revision petition. In such view of the matter, I hold that the above civil miscellaneous petition i.e. C.M.P.(MD) No.4462 of 2016 is not sustainable and accordingly, the said miscellaneous petition is dismissed. 16. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the decisions reported in 1997 L.W. 844 (P.L. Mani v. M.M. Thenappa Chettiar), 1960 (2) MLJ 328 (Narasram Naraindas alias purushotamdas v. R. Venkataswami Naidu and others), AIR 1984 Mad 75 (S. Venkitachalam Iyer v. Rama Iyer) and 1997 (1) LW 1 (Thangavelu v. Ramadoss). The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in support of his contentions, placed reliance upon the decisions reported in 1997 L.W. 844 (P.L. Mani v. M.M. Thenappa Chettiar), 1960 (2) MLJ 328 (Narasram Naraindas alias purushotamdas v. R. Venkataswami Naidu and others), AIR 1984 Mad 75 (S. Venkitachalam Iyer v. Rama Iyer) and 1997 (1) LW 1 (Thangavelu v. Ramadoss). The principles of law adumbrated in the above citations are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. In the light of the above discussions, the Judgments and Decrees of the Court below are confirmed and accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. C.M.P. (MD) No. 4462 of 2016 is dismissed. Consequently, other connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.