Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2707 (MAD)

S. S. Ragavacharry v. N. Ramanathan

2017-08-17

T.RAVINDRAN

body2017
ORDER : Impugning the fair and decreetal orders, dated 25.01.2007, passed in R.C.A.No.37 of 2006, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / I Additional Sub Court, Madurai, confirming the fair and decreetal orders, dated 17.04.2006, passed in I.A.No.242 of 2005 in R.C.O.P.No.358 of 2004, on the file of the Rent Controller / Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai. 2. The respondents have preferred R.C.O.P.No.358 of 2004, against the revision petitioner, for eviction on the ground of wilful default. It is found that the respondents have also preferred an application, under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter, referred to as “the Act”), in the above said rent control original proceedings and meanwhile, it is found that the revision petitioner / tenant alleging that the respondents have not established that they are entitled to maintain the rent control original petition on the footing that they are the exclusive owners of the property concerned and therefore, alleging that the wife of the deceased landlord Nagappan had also claimed ownership in respect of the property concerned along with her daughters and inasmuch there is a title dispute between the legal heirs of the deceased Nagappan as regards the property concerned, according to the revision petitioner, the said issue should be determined as a preliminary issue so as to decide as to whether the petitioners / landlords have entitlement to maintain the rent control original petition as such and hence, he preferred an application in I.A.No.242 of 2005, for determining the above issue as a preliminary issue in the matter. 3. Resisting the above application preferred by the revision petitioner, the respondents pointing that after the death of Nagappan, the revision petitioner had been tendering the rent to the respondents and also obtaining the receipts and according to them, with a view to delay the rent control original proceedings and also nullify the proceedings initiated by the respondents under Section 11(4) of the Act, the present application has been preferred by the revision petitioner and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. 4. The Rent Controller holding that the present application is not maintainable as such, particularly, the revision petitioner himself having admitted that he had been tendering the rent to the respondents after the death of Nagappan and thereby, holding that the issue sought to be raised as a preliminary issue could only be determined during the course of trial in the main rent control original proceedings and accordingly, dismissed the application preferred by the revision petitioner. The appeal preferred against the same also ended in failure. Aggrieved over the same, the present civil revision petition has come to be preferred. 5. The following points arise for consideration in this civil revision petition: i. Whether the revision petitioner / tenant is entitled to raise the issue as regards the title or ownership of the property in question as a preliminary issue in the rent control original proceedings? and ii. To what relief the revision petitioner is entitled to? POINT NO.I: 6. The rent control original petition has been initiated by the respondents / landlords against the revision petitioner / tenant on the ground of willful default. It is the case of the respondents that for a long period of time the revision petitioner has not paid the rent deliberately and hence, the same constituted willful default and thereby, he is liable to be evicted from the property concerned and hence, according to them, they have been necessitated to initiate appropriate proceedings. It is also found that the respondents have also filed an application under Section 11(4) of the Act against the revision petitioner. 7. While so, the revision petitioner has preferred the above application by raising the issue as regards the ownership of the property concerned and praying for to determine the same as a preliminary issue. 8. It is also found that the respondents have also filed an application under Section 11(4) of the Act against the revision petitioner. 7. While so, the revision petitioner has preferred the above application by raising the issue as regards the ownership of the property concerned and praying for to determine the same as a preliminary issue. 8. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that inasmuch the wife of the deceased Nagappan also laid a claim of ownership over the property concerned as belonging to her and her daughters also, the revision petitioner had been forced to file the application for deciding the issue as regards the ownership of the property concerned as a preliminary issue in the main rent control original petition and hence, the Courts below are wrong in not entertaining the same and holding that the said issue could be determined during the course of the trial in the main rent control original proceedings. 9. Per contra, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the revision petitioner himself having admitted that he had been paying the rent to the respondents, after the death of the erstwhile owner / Nagappan and also obtaining the receipts for the same and according to him, considering the definition of “Landlord” as given in the Act, the person, who is entitled to receive the rent also falls within the definition of the “Landlord” and such being the case, according to him, only with a view to protract the eviction proceedings and with a view to squat on the property without paying the rent whatsoever, the present application has been filed by the revision petitioner and hence, the same has been rightly rejected by the Courts below, holding that the issue raised by the revision petitioner could be determined during the course of trial in the main rent control original proceedings. 10. At the out set, it has not been established by the revision petitioner as to whether at all he is entitled to maintain the application in the rent control original proceedings to determine the issue involved in this case i.e., ownership of the property concerned as a preliminary issue. 10. At the out set, it has not been established by the revision petitioner as to whether at all he is entitled to maintain the application in the rent control original proceedings to determine the issue involved in this case i.e., ownership of the property concerned as a preliminary issue. That apart, when it has been admitted by the revision petitioner himself that after the death of the erstwhile owner / landlord Nagappan, he had been paying the rent to the respondents and obtaining the receipts from them, his case that the question of ownership has to be determined at the first instance before the other issues are gone into as such cannot be countenanced. The Courts below have rightly found that considering the above said conduct of the revision petitioner and also finding the inclusive definition of the “Landlord” as given under the Act, particularly, the person, who is entitled to receive the rent also falls within the definition of the “Landlord”, held that the present application preferred by the revision petitioner is nothing but a ploy to delay the proceedings endlessly with a view to avoid the payment of rent and squat on the property so as to defeat the rights and interests of the respondents. The above findings of the Courts below are found to be just and correct in all aspects both factually as well as legally. When there is no material to hold that the wife of the erstwhile owner / deceased Nagappan had made a claim of ownership to the property concerned along with her daughters to the petitioner as such, when it has been admitted by the revision petitioner himself that he had been tendering the rent to the respondents after the death of the erstwhile owner Nagappan and obtaining the receipts, his sudden doubt as to whether at all, the respondents have the exclusive ownership of the property concerned, without any basis is nothing but an indirect method to avoid the payment of the rent and squat on the property endlessly with a view to defeat the rights of the respondents. In such view of the matter, it is found that the Courts below have rightly rejected the application preferred by the revision petitioner to determine the issue of ownership as a preliminary issue and further rightly held that the said issue could be gone into and adjudicated during the course of trial of the main rent control original proceedings. In such view of the matter, it is found that the revision petitioner / tenant is not entitled to raise the issue as regards the title or ownership of the property in question as a preliminary issue in the rent control original proceedings. Accordingly, Point No.I is answered. POINT NO.II: 11. In conclusion, the fair and decreetal orders, dated 25.01.2007, passed in R.C.A.No.37 of 2006, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / I Additional Sub Court, Madurai, confirming the fair and decreetal orders, dated 17.04.2006, passed in I.A.No.242 of 2005 in R.C.O.P.No.358 of 2004, on the file of the Rent Controller / Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai, are confirmed. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.