Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2732 (MAD)

P. Jayaraman v. P. Malleswari

2022-08-16

J.NISHA BANU

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.2015 passed in R.C.A.No.831 of 2006 on the file of VII Small Causes Court, Chennai by confirming the fair and decretal order dated 09.06.2006 passed in M.P.No.130 of 2006 in R.C.O.P.No.2130 of 2005 on the file of XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai. Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.2015 passed in R.C.A.No.1040 of 2006 on the file of VII Small Causes Court, Chennai by confirming the fair and decretal order dated 17.04.2006 passed in M.P.No.130 of 2006 in R.C.O.P.No.2130 of 2005 on the file of XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai.) Common Order 1. Since the issue involved in both the revision petitions are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Aggrieved against the common judgment made in R.C.A.Nos.831 & 1040 of 2006, dated 31.03.2015 on the file of VII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the revision petitioner has filed the present civil revision petitions. The facts, barely needed for the disposal of these revision petitions are as under:- 2.1. R.C.A.No.831 of 2006 arises against the order and decree dated 09.06.2006 passed in R.C.O.P.No.2130 of 2005 passed by the learned XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai and R.C.A.No.1040 of 2006 arises against the order and decree dated 17.04.2006 passed in M.P.No.130 of 2006 in R.C.O.P.No.2130 of 2005 passed by the learned XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2.2. R.C.O.P.No.2130 of 2005 was filed by the respondent herein before the Court of Small Causes, Chennai, seeking for eviction of the petitioner herein from the part of the residential portion of the premises bearing Old No.5, New No.13, Kalingarayan II Street, Old Washermenpet, Chennai 600 021, ad measuring to an extent of about 400 sq.ft, more particularly described in the schedule and to direct the petitioner herein to pay the costs. 2.3. Further, M.P.No.130 of 2006 in R.C.O.P.No.2130 of 2005 was filed by the respondent herein seeking for a direction to the petitioner herein to pay the monthly rents due from August 2002 onwards and continue to pay the same in future during the pendency of the proceedings, wherein the total rent upto the month of January 2006 amounts to sum of Rs.44,000/- . Upon hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent, the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in M.P.No.130 of 2006 vide order dated 17.06.2006 issued a direction to the petitioner herein to pay the rent arrears of Rs.44,000/- within 27.04.2006, failing which, eviction against the petitioner herein shall be ordered in R.C.O.P.No.2130 of 2005 and thereafter, adjourned the case to 28.04.2006. Aggrieved against the said order passed in M.P.No.130 of 2006 in R.C.O.P.No.2130 of 2005, the petitioner herein preferred R.C.A.No.1040 of 2006. Subsequently, when M.P.No.130 of 2006 in R.C.O.P.N.2130 of 2005 came up for hearing on 09.06.2006, the learned Judge allowed the petition filed in R.C.O.P.No.2130 of 2005 and ordered eviction of the petitioner herein, within a period of one month. Aggrieved against the order made in R.C.O.P.No.2130 of 2005 ordering eviction of the petitioner herein, the petitioner herein preferred R.C.A.No.831 of 2006. 2.4. R.C.A.Nos.831 of 2006 against R.C.O.P.No.2130 of 2005 and R.C.A.No.1040 of 2006 against M.P.No.130 of 2006 in R.C.O.P.No.2130 of 2005 came up for hearing before the learned Judge, VII Court of Small Causes at Chennai and the learned Judge, vide common judgment dated 31.03.2015, dismissed the appeals and confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller and ordered eviction within a period of two months. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant has preferred two revision petitions against appeals. 3. The case of the revision petitioner is that both the Appellate Authority as well as the Rent Controller, failed to consider the position of law that the 'issue of denial of title' cannot be considered in the application filed under Section 11(1) of Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960. Further, the learned counsel relied on the judgment made in J.J.Lal Pvt Ltd and others vs. M.R.Mrali and another reported in AIR 2002 SC 1061 , wherein it has been held as, 'the scope of enquiry as to title is only limited to the extent of its bonfideness and the landlord shall file separate application for eviction on the ground of “not bonafide denial of title” and opportunity to the petitioner shall be given in that regard” and hence prayed to set aside the common judgment made in R.C.A.Nos.831 & 1040 of 2006, dated 09.06.2006 on the file of VII Small Causes Court, Chennai and allow the present revisions. 4. 4. There is no representation for the respondent. 5. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and also gone through the orders passed by the authorities under the Rent Control Act. 6. In the order dated 17.04.2006, the learned Judge held that it has been admitted by the Petitioner/tenant that the respondent has been collecting the rent and he is paying the rent to her and earlier he was paying rent to one Nagarathinammal and thereafter to respondent’s husband Ramasamy Nadar and after the demise of said Ramasamy Nadar, respondent is collecting the rent. It is further held by the authorities that under the Rent Control Act, it is not necessary for the landlord to prove his/her title for the purpose of collecting rent from the tenant. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention cannot be applied in the present facts of the case. The Appellate Authority as well as the Rent Controller have rightly considered the evidence and passed orders, which needs no interference by this Court. Hence, the Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merits and hence, the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.