Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3355 (MAD)

Ramakrishnan v. S. R. Sundaram

2018-09-28

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

body2018
JUDGMENT KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order, dated 21.03.2007, made in R.C.A.No.12 of 2002, on the file of the Court of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Court), Kumbakonam, confirming the order, dated 25.06.2002 passed in RCOP.No.4 of 2000, by the learned Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Valangaiman. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2.1. The respondents herein are the landlords of the petition property, in which the petitioner herein is a tenant. The respondents herein as petitioners have filed RCOP.No.4 of 2000 on the file of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Valangaiman for eviction and delivery of possession of the building in question on the ground that originally the building in question belonged to one Alamelu Ammal, mother of the petitioners 1 to 6 and grand mother of the petitioners 7 to 9. The said Alamelu Ammal got the building under the registered partition deed, dated 07.07.1971. One Sooriyanarayanan is the younger brother of the said Alamelu Ammal and he was managing the building on her behalf. The respondent/tenant took the building on lease from Sooriyanarayanan by executing a rental agreement, dated 03.02.1982. As per the said agreement, the respondent agreed to pay Rs. 40/- per month as rent. Subsequently, the monthly rent was increased to Rs. 100/- per month. After the demise of the said Alamelu Ammal, the petitioners/landlords are the only legal heirs of the deceased Alamelu Ammal. Therefore, the petitioners are the present landlords of the building in question and they are entitled to evict the respondent/tenant from the petition building. 2.2.The petitioners/landlords further stated in the petition that the respondent/tenant had not paid the arrears of rent for the past three years and therefore, committed wilful default in paying the rent from 01.09.1997 to 1.09.2000. Therefore, a lawyer notice was issued on 13.09.2000 to the respondent/tenant asking him to vacate the building and pay the arrears of rent. After receiving the notice, he has given a reply dated 26.09.2000, denying the title of the petitioners/landlords. Further, the first petitioner is retired from railway service and wants to settle down at Valangaiman. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the above RCOP.No.4 of 2000 for the relief stated therein. 3. After receiving the notice, he has given a reply dated 26.09.2000, denying the title of the petitioners/landlords. Further, the first petitioner is retired from railway service and wants to settle down at Valangaiman. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the above RCOP.No.4 of 2000 for the relief stated therein. 3. The respondent/tenant filed his written statement in RCOP.No.4 of 2000 stating that the suit site is natham jari and one Krishnamurthy has put up a thatched super-structure and later the property in question was leased out to the respondent's/tenant's father. After the demise of the respondent's/tenant's father, the respondent/tenant became a lessee and purchased the super-structure and put up brick walls and tiled proof. It is alleged that after the death of Krishnamurthy, his wife Nagammal was staying with her brother Sooriyanarayanan. Therefore, it is stated that the suit property was not owned by Alamelu Ammal or the petitioners. Further, it is stated that there is no question of tenancy to plead for wilful default or personal occupation. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. The petitioners in the RCOP filed petitions for the purpose of eviction and delivery of possession before the Rent Control Tribunal. On behalf of the petitioners side Pws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to Ex.P22 were marked and on behalf of the respondents side Rws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.R1 to R7 were marked. After examining the pleadings the learned Rent Controller allowed RCOP.No.4 of 2000. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner herein preferred the RCA.No.12 of 2002 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Court), Kumbakonam. The Appellate Authority has passed an order on 21.03.2007 dismissing the RCA.No.12 of 2002 and confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller in RCOP. As against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, petitioner herein preferred the present Revision before this Court. 5. Heard, Mr. M.P. Senthil, on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M.V. Krishnan, on behalf of the respondents. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant has challenged the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below on the following grounds; (a). There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the revision petitioner/tenant and respondents/landlords. (b). The respondents also failed to implead the other co-owners as contemplated under Section 10(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the revision petitioner/tenant and respondents/landlords. (b). The respondents also failed to implead the other co-owners as contemplated under Section 10(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that the co- owner of the property cannot file the RCOP without impleading the other co-owners. (c). The revision petitioner/tenant has not committed wilful default in paying monthly rent and therefore, the present petition is not legally maintainable. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents/landlords contended that both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority have considered the facts on law properly and reasoning given by both the authorities are valid and legal and this CRP is devoid on merits and prayed for dismissal of the CRP. 8. Under these circumstances, this Court finds that in this present Revision the following issues arises for consideration:- (1) Whether there is a jural relationship of tenant and owner between the petitioner and the respondents? (2) Whether one of the co-owner can initiate eviction proceedings against the tenant? (3) Whether the tenant committed default in payment of rent and therefore, liable for eviction? 9. Point No : 1 It is the specific case of the petitioner herein that he is not the tenant in the premises in question and he had been paying kist for the building in the name of the said Krishnamurthy, which is evident from Exs.R1 to R5. However, it is seen from the records that the tax is not paid in the name of the petitioner, but in the name of Alamelu Ammal relation. Further, it is seen that under Ex.P22, the patta, issued in favour of the petitioner/tenant for the demised premises by the Tahsildar, stands cancelled, which would go to show that the petitioner/tenant is not the owner of the demised premises. The documents filed under Exs.P5 to P8 would also go to show that the petitioner has paid the rent for certain period. Ex.P9 to Ex.P13-Money Order receipts were filed to prove that the petitioner was a tenant. Therefore, the respondents have established the relationship of landlords-tenant between the respondents and the petitioner. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a jural relationship of tenant and landlords exists between the petitioner and the respondents. Ex.P9 to Ex.P13-Money Order receipts were filed to prove that the petitioner was a tenant. Therefore, the respondents have established the relationship of landlords-tenant between the respondents and the petitioner. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a jural relationship of tenant and landlords exists between the petitioner and the respondents. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered that there is a jural relationship of tenant and owner existing between petitioner and respondents. 10. Point No.2: 10.1. Now, the respondents are the co-owner of the property. According to the petitioner, the respondents alone cannot file petition for eviction. The respondents clearly contended that the petitioner has no title to the property. 10.2. According to the respondents, the co-owners can file the Original Petition on behalf of the others. According to the petitioner, the respondents filed the RCOP in the capacity as co-owners against the petitioner and it is not maintainable. On the other hand, the respondents submit that the petition for eviction can be filed by the co-owners on behalf of others. In support of his submission, he referred the judgment of A. Madasamy Nadar Vs.A.J.Khaja Nazamudeen and Others, (1991) 1 MLJ 532 . which reads as follows:- "7. Even assuming that the petitioners are not the only heirs of their father and there are other heirs, who are not impleaded as parties in the Rent Control Original Petition, the petitioners alone as co-owner of the petition mentioned property after the death of their father can maintain the petition for eviction on behalf of other co-shares Section 2(6) of the Act defined a landlord' as follows: "Landlord" includes person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his own account or on behalf of another or on behalf of himself and Others as an' agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitle to receive the rent, if the building were let to a tenant. In Kanta God V.B.P.Pathak, (1977) 3 SCR 412 , the Supreme Court dealing with the question whether one co-owner can maintain a petition for eviction on behalf of other co-owners held as follows:- This Court in Sri Rant Pasricha Vs. In Kanta God V.B.P.Pathak, (1977) 3 SCR 412 , the Supreme Court dealing with the question whether one co-owner can maintain a petition for eviction on behalf of other co-owners held as follows:- This Court in Sri Rant Pasricha Vs. Jaganatha, (1977) 1 SCR 395 , clarified that a co-owner is as much an owner of the entire property as any sole owner of the property is: Jurisprudentially, it is not correct to say that a co-owner of property is not its owner. He owns every part of the composite property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional owner of the property...It is therefore not possible to accept the submission that the plaintiff, who is admittedly the landlord and co-owner of the premises is not the owner of the premises within the meaning of Section 13(1)(f). It is not necessary to establish that the plaintiff is the only owner of the property, being at the same time acknowledged landlord of the defendants.? That case also was one for eviction under the rent control law of Bengal. The law having been thus put beyond doubt, the contention that the absence of the other co-owner on record dis entitled the first respondent from suing for eviction, fails." 10.3. From the above judgment it is clear that the co-owners of the property can file the petition, on behalf of the other co-owners and the Original Petition is maintainable at the instance of one of the co-owners. Further in terms of the Section 2(6)of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the landlady includes the co-owners. 10.4. Therefore, this Court is of the view that one of the co-owners of the property is entitled to file the RCOP for eviction. The Point No.2 answered accordingly. 11. Point No.3: It is an admitted fact that the petitioner/tenant has not paid the rent to the respondents on the ground that there is no relationship of tenant and landlord exists amongst the revision petitioner and respondents. Now, as the said issue is decided in favour of the respondents/landlords, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is in willful default in making the rent to the respondents. Hence, the Original Petition filed for eviction by the respondents, on the ground of willful default is maintainable. Now, as the said issue is decided in favour of the respondents/landlords, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is in willful default in making the rent to the respondents. Hence, the Original Petition filed for eviction by the respondents, on the ground of willful default is maintainable. Accordingly, this Court uphold the orders of the Courts below and directs the petitioner to vacate the premises. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has not found any force in the contention urged on the side of the revision petitioner/tenant and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserved to be dismissed. 13. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below are confirmed. However, the revision petitioner/tenant is given three months time to vacate the demised building. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.