Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 3535 (MAD)

Jothi Ramalingam v. Shanmugam (Died)

2022-09-29

B.PUGALENDHI

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 19.07.2021 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli, in RCA.No.18 of 2020, confirming the order dated 05.03.2010 passed by the Rent Controller / Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, in RCOP.No.105 of 2005.) 1. This revision petition is filed as against the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruchirappalli, in RCA.No.18 of 2010, dated 19.07.2021, confirming the order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif / Rent Controller, Tiruchirappalli, in RCOP.No.105 of 2005, dated 05.03.2010. 2. The revision petitioner is a tenant and he is running a Rewinding Shop in the respondents' / landlords' premises at Uraiyur, Tiruchirappalli. He was inducted as tenant in the year 1998 and he surrendered the building in the year 2000. Thereafter, a lease agreement was entered into in respect of the building till February, 2002. The petitioner / tenant filed a suit against the respondents / landlords before the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchirappalli, in O.S.No. 365 of 2002 seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents / landlords from dispossessing the petitioner without following the due process of law. Subsequent to the suit, the respondents / landlords filed RCOP.No.105 of 2005, before the Principal District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli, u/s. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), to vacate the petitioner on the ground that the property is required for their additional accommodation. After elaborate hearing, the RCOP was allowed in favour of the respondents / landlords on 05.03.2010. As against the order passed by the Rent Controller in RCOP.No.105 of 2005, dated 05.03.2010, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority / Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli, in RCA.No.18 of 2010. The appellate authority has also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, by its fair and decreetal order dated 19.07.2021. As against the concurrent findings, the petitioner has moved the instant revision. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed u/s. 10(3)(a), instead of Section 10(3)(c) of the Act is not maintainable and that the respondents / landlords have not established their case for additional accommodation. As against the concurrent findings, the petitioner has moved the instant revision. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application filed u/s. 10(3)(a), instead of Section 10(3)(c) of the Act is not maintainable and that the respondents / landlords have not established their case for additional accommodation. However, without considering the provisions of law, the Courts below have erroneously passed an order in favour of the respondents. He further submitted that the petitioner / tenant had already surrendered a portion of the property in favour of the respondents. There is no necessity for any additional accommodation by the respondents and in fact, the respondents have sublet the available space to third party for running a telephone booth and there is no bona fide on the part of the respondents in their plea seeking the land for additional accommodation. 4. He further submitted that pending the appeal in RCA.No.18 of 2010, the petitioner has filed three interlocutory applications in I.A.Nos.16 to 18 of 2021 to reopen the case and for receiving additional documents. The said applications were dismissed by the appellate authority on 14.07.2021 and within five days, the appeal itself was dismissed, thereby, the petitioner was prevented from producing additional evidence. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and also considering the grounds raised in the revision petition and also the orders passed by the Courts below, this Court is not inclined to entertain this civil revision petition for more than one reasons. Ground No.1:- 6. The revision petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the year 1998. After the period of lease, the petitioner has also surrendered the premises in the year 2000 and thereafter, a fresh lease agreement was also entered upto the month of February, 2002. Admittedly, the lease period has not been extended thereafter. The petitioner has filed a suit as against the respondents / landlords that he should not be vacated without following the due process of law. Thereafter, RCOP was filed by the respondents in the year 2005 on the ground of want of additional accommodation. The petitioner has taken two different stands with regard to the request of the respondents / landlords. Thereafter, RCOP was filed by the respondents in the year 2005 on the ground of want of additional accommodation. The petitioner has taken two different stands with regard to the request of the respondents / landlords. On the one hand, he contended that he has already surrendered a portion of the property to the respondents and that the respondents, instead of utilizing the same, have leased it to a third party for running a STD booth. Whereas, in his counter statement filed before the Rent Controller, the revision petitioner / tenant has admitted that the respondents / landlords are running a telephone booth in the petition mentioned properties. He has also admitted in his oral evidence that (late) Shanmugam, the landlord, is running a business in a portion of the property along with his son / the third respondent herein. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this ground raised by the petitioner is not only contradictory, but also without any merits. Ground No.2:- 7. The next ground raised by the petitioner is that the RCOP was filed u/s. 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, instead of filing u/s.10(3)(c) of the Act. Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) & 10(3)(c) of the Act read as follows:- “10. Eviction of tenants:- (3)(a) A landlord may, subject to the provisions of clause (d), apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building – ... ... ... (iii) in case it is any other non-residential building, if the landlord or any member of his family is not occupying for purposes of a business which he or any member of his family is carrying on, a non-residential building in the city, town or village concerned which is his own: (3)(c) A landlord who is occupying only a part of a building, whether residential or non-residential, may, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), apply to the Controller for an order directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of the building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional accommodation for residential purposes or for purposes of a business which he is carrying on, as the case may be.” 8. It is a settled position of law that for not quoting a relevant provision or Section, the relief cannot be denied to a party. 9. It is a settled position of law that for not quoting a relevant provision or Section, the relief cannot be denied to a party. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Ram Sunder Ram v. Union of India & Ors, reported in 2007 (9) SCALE 197 , has held as follows:- "19. ...It appears that the competent authority has wrongly quoted Section 20 in the order of discharge whereas, in fact, the order of discharge has to be read having been passed under Section 22 of the Army Act. “It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available in law [see N. Mani v. Sangeetha Theatre and Ors. (2004) 12 SCC 278 ].” Thus, quoting of wrong provision of Section 20 in the order of discharge of the appellant by the competent authority does not take away the jurisdiction of the authority under Section 22 of the Army Act. Therefore, the order of discharge of the appellant from the army service cannot be vitiated on this sole ground as contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant." 10. In the case of P.K.Palanisamy v. N.Arumugham, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 173 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “27. ... Only because a wrong provision was mentioned by the appellant, the same, in our opinion, by itself would not be a ground to hold that the application was not maintainable or that the order passed thereon would be a nullity. It is a well settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefor.” Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept this ground raised by the petitioner. Ground No.3:- 11. It is a well settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefor.” Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept this ground raised by the petitioner. Ground No.3:- 11. The third ground raised by the petitioner is that the petitions filed by him in I.A.Nos.16 to 18 of 2021 to reopen the case and to receive additional documents were dismissed on 14.07.2021 and within five days, the main appeal in RCA No. 18 of 2010 itself was dismissed, thereby, he was prevented from producing additional documents. It appears that the RCOP before the Rent Controller was filed in the year 2005. It was disposed of only in the year 2010. The appeal as against the order passed in the RCOP was preferred in the year 2010 and for eleven years, the petitioner / tenant dragged on the appeal by filing petitions after petitions. It would be appropriate to extract the following portions from the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority:- “11. In the present appeal, there were as many as 32 Interlocutory Applications filed by the appellant seeking for the various relief such as appointment of Advocate Commissioner, send for the records and to receive the documents as Additional evidence. It is pertinent to point out here that the appellant has been filing Interlocutory Applications on various occasions under the same provisions (ie.) under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking for the order as to receive the documents as additional evidence, which are follows:- S.No. I.A.No. Date of filing Date of Disposal 1 I.A.No.110/2014 17.02.2014 09.03.2021 (Dismissed) 2 I.A.No.255/2014 28.04.2014 09.03.2021 (Dismissed) 3 I.A.No.221/2015 23.06.2015 09.03.2021 (Dismissed) 4 I.A.No.192/2016 07.09.2016 07.09.2016 (Allowed) 5 I.A.No.187/2017 27.08.2017 09.03.2021 (Dismissed) 12. The proposed documents are nothing but the documents to show that the respondent is paying monthly rent amount through money order and the documents to show that he is in the enjoyment of the petition building. Nevertheless, there is no dispute in the present case with regard to the payment of rent and enjoyment of the building by the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the petition building is required to him for additional accommodation. However, the respondent has persisted in filing petition after petition to protract the proceeding. 13. Nevertheless, there is no dispute in the present case with regard to the payment of rent and enjoyment of the building by the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the petition building is required to him for additional accommodation. However, the respondent has persisted in filing petition after petition to protract the proceeding. 13. In the present case, the petitioner / landlord initially preferred a revision before the Hon'ble High Court in CRP.MD.No.63/2018 seeking for the order as to direct this court to dispose of the case within the stipulated period. Wherein, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to pass an order dated 19.01.2018 directing this court to dispose of this case within the period of three months. In spite of giving several adjournments the respondent did not come forward to conduct the appeal by submitting his arguments. Pursuant to the same, this court passed an order dated 26.03.2018 dismissing the appeal for default. 14. Further, the respondent / tenant filed an application to restore appeal I.A.No.377/2018 and the same was allowed on 15.04.2019. Accordingly, the appeal was restored on file. Immediately, after restoring the appeal on file, the respondent/ tenant started filing various Interlocutory Applications. Therefore, the petitioner / landlord has once again preferred the revision before the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in CRP(MD)No.699/2020 seeking for the order as to direct this court to dispose of the case within a time frame. 15. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to direct this court to dispose of the case within the period of two months through it's order dated 24.09.2020. Further, this court has disposed of all the Interlocutory Applications filed by the respondent / tenant through various orders and posted the matter for arguments. However, the respondent / tenant has not come forward to argue the case. ...” 12.The above extracted portions are self explanatory. The petitioner / tenant has filed the interlocutory applications to show that he is paying monthly rent through money order and that he is in enjoyment of the building, over which, there is no dispute at all. The respondents / landlords have filed the application on the ground of requirement of the building for their additional accommodation and not on any other grounds. Therefore, this Court, on this ground raised by the petitioner, is not inclined to entertain the application. 13. The respondents / landlords have filed the application on the ground of requirement of the building for their additional accommodation and not on any other grounds. Therefore, this Court, on this ground raised by the petitioner, is not inclined to entertain the application. 13. The petitioner has dragged on a rent control proceedings, which is a summary proceedings, for nearly sixteen years. The available evidence discloses that (late) Shanmugam, who filed the RCOP, run a joint business establishment in the adjacent portion, along with his son / third respondent herein. For want of additional space, he has filed the RCOP. Pending the proceedings, he died and the case was contested by his legal heirs, the respondents herein. Therefore, the requirement of the landlords for additional accommodation cannot be found fault with. 14. In view of the foregoing discussions and reasonings, this Court is not inclined to entertain this civil revision petition. Accordingly, this revision stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.