Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2271 (MAD)

S. Kumarasamy v. V. Muthukumar

2025-04-24

R.VIJAYAKUMAR

body2025
ORDER : These two revision petitions have been filed by the respondents in RCOP.No.1 of 2018 and 2 of 2018 on the file of the Rent Controller, Ambasamudram challenging the concurrent order of eviction passed by the authority. 2. The respondent herein had filed RCOP.No.1 of 2018 for Shop No.14A. RCOP.No.2 of 2018 for Shop No.14 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of willful default, owner's occupation, demolition and reconstruction. 3. The Rent Controller after considering the submissions on either side, had proceeded to allow the eviction petitions on all the grounds. 4. The tenant had filed RCA.Nos.2 & 3 of 2021 before the Sub Court, Ambasamudram. The Appellate Authority has also confirmed the order of eviction. Challenging the concurrent findings, the present civil revision petitions have been filed by the tenant. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that Shop No.14 is located in the ground floor and 14A is located in the first floor. However, in the RCOP petitions, the landlord had contended that Shop No.14 is located on the western side and Shop No.14A is located on the eastern side as if both of them are located in the ground floor. This objection with regard to the identity and location of the property were raised before the appellate authority. An application was also filed for an appointment of Advocate Commissioner. However, the appellate authority has proceeded to dismiss the Advocate Commissioner application along with the delay and has proceeded to confirm the order of eviction. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the petition mentioned shops originally belonged to one Paramasivan and he had executed a settlement deed on 30.07.1972 granting life interest to his son Shanmuganantham and vested interest in favour of his grandson Sivasankar. The tenant had taken the shop on lease from the said Shanmuganantham 18 years back and he is paying rent to the said Shanmuganantham and his son Sivasankar. Therefore, the petitioner in RCOP or his vendor Jeyalakshmi do not have any title over the petition mentioned property. He had further contended that the said Sivasankar had filed O.S.No.29 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram challenging the fraudulent sale deed and the said suit is pending. 7. The petitioner had further contended that there is no landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. He had further contended that the said Sivasankar had filed O.S.No.29 of 2016 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram challenging the fraudulent sale deed and the said suit is pending. 7. The petitioner had further contended that there is no landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner is paying rent to the said Shanmuganantham and his son Sivasankar. The sale deed in favour of the present petitioner in RCOP are forged documents. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord had contended that one Jeyalakshmi had filed O.S.No. 15 of 1992 before the Sub Court, Ambasamudram seeking partition of various items of properties including Shop Nos.14 and 14A which are the subject matter of the revision petition. The said suit was decreed in favour of Jeyalakshmi. Based upon the same, she had filed I.A.No.43 of 2007 for passing of a final decree. A final decree was passed on 20.10.2011. In the said final decree, the petition mentioned property namely Shop Nos.14 and 14A are shown as 27 th item in the first schedule and they were allotted to Jeyalakshmi. Based upon the the said final decree, the landlord has purchased the same from the said Jeyalakshmi by way of a registered sale deed dated 13.05.2014. 9. Since there was some mistake with regard to the boundaries, a rectification deed was executed by her on 16.11.2016. In the said suit, the erstwhile landlord namely Shanmuganantham was shown as third respondent. In such circumstances, the denial of title on the side of the revision petitioner is not bonafide. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have considered these documents and have arrived at a finding that the denial of title on the part of the tenant is not bonafide and has proceeded the order of eviction. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent had further contended that after the property was purchased by the present landlord, there was an oral agreement with the tenant for payment of rent. The tenant is also aware of the purchase made by the present landlord. The property tax as well as the electricity service connection have been mutated in the name of the present landlord. In such circumstances, the tenant cannot contend that there is no landlord tenant relationship between the parties. 11. The tenant is also aware of the purchase made by the present landlord. The property tax as well as the electricity service connection have been mutated in the name of the present landlord. In such circumstances, the tenant cannot contend that there is no landlord tenant relationship between the parties. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent had further contended that the tenant had filed O.S.No.68 of 2018 as against the present landlord not to evict him unless by due process of law. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The schedule that was mentioned in the said suit by the tenant has been replicated in the present Rent Control proceedings. Therefore, it is clear that there is no dispute whatsoever with regard to the identity of the property. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent had further contended that though the tenant was aware of the purchase made by the present landlord, admittedly he has not paid the rent from the year 2014 onwards. Therefore, the tenant has committed willful default default. The petition mentioned premises are 80 years old and therefore, the landlord wants to demolish the same and put up a new construction. In such circumstances, the eviction order passed by the authorities below may be confirmed. 13. Heard both sides and perused the material records. 14. Both rent control petitions have been filed seeking eviction of the tenant from Shop Nos.14 and 14A. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the tenant is that Door No.14 is located in the ground floor and 14A is located in the first floor. The landlord is attempting to evict the tenant from Door No.15 which is on the eastern side of Door No.14. It is further contended that the landlord does not have any title to the suit schedule property. Therefore, it is clear that the tenant has not only denied the title of the landlord, but also has admitted the fact that he has not paid the rent to the landlord from the year 2014 onwards. 15. As far as the plea relating to location of Door No.14A is concerned, the said plea has not been raised in the counter. No document was produced before the Rent Controller to establish the fact that Shop No. 14A is located on the first floor. 15. As far as the plea relating to location of Door No.14A is concerned, the said plea has not been raised in the counter. No document was produced before the Rent Controller to establish the fact that Shop No. 14A is located on the first floor. For the first time, such a plea was raised before the Appellate Authority and an application was filed seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner. The Appellate Authority has proceeded to dismiss the commissioner application on the ground that there is no pleadings on the side of the tenant that Shop No.14A is located on the first floor. When there is no pleadings whatsoever that Shop No. 14A is located on the first floor of Shop No.14 in the counter filed before the Rent Controller, such a plea cannot be raised for the first time before the Appellate Court or in these revision. Without pleadings, the question of appointing the Advocate Commissioner to collect evidence is also not legally sustainable. 16. That apart for Door No.14 as well as for Door No.14A, the landlord has mutated the property tax as well as the electricity service connection in his name. In fact, the tenant is remitting the Electricity charges to Door No.14 and Door No.14A which is standing in the name of the respondent herein. Therefore, it is clear that the plea relating to the lie and location of Door No.14A has been raised only to delay the proceedings. 17. The tenant has further contended that there is no landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. The original owner of the property namely Paramasivam has executed a registered settlement deed in favour of Shanmuganantham conferring life interest upon him and vested interest upon his son Sivasankar. A final decree has been passed in O.S.No.15 of 1992 on the file of the Sub Court Ambasamudram wherein the said Shanmuganantham was arrayed as third respondent. In the said final decree proceedings, Shop Nos.14 and 14A were allotted to the decree holder namely one P.Jeyalakshmi on 20.10.2011. 18. Based on the above said final decree, the said Jeyalakshmi has sold the property to the respondent herein on 13.05.2014. The revision petitioner during his cross examination has admitted that he is aware of the purchase made by the present landlord. 18. Based on the above said final decree, the said Jeyalakshmi has sold the property to the respondent herein on 13.05.2014. The revision petitioner during his cross examination has admitted that he is aware of the purchase made by the present landlord. In the reply notice sent to the landlord, the tenant has denied the title and he continues to deny the title in the counter as well. 19. A perusal of final decree in O.S.No.15 of 1992 ( Exhibit P10) would clearly reveal that in the partition suit, Shop Nos.14 and 14A have been allotted to the said Jeyalakshmi from whom the present landlord has purchased the property. In such circumstances, the continuos denial of title by the tenant is not bonafide. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority after perusing the final decree and the sale deed in favour of the present landlord, have rightly held that the denial of title on the part of the tenant is not bonafide in nature. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the said findings. 20. The tenant had further contended that there is no landlord tenant relationship. The tenant claims that his landlord is one Shanmuganantham and his son Sivasankar. Even as per the pleadings in the counter, the said Shanmuganantham is having life interest over the petition mentioned property and Shanmuganantham is alive as on today. He was a party to the final decree proceedings in O.S.No.15 of 1992 in which the petition mentioned Shop Nos.14 and 14A have been allotted to Mrs.P.Jeyalakshmi. From the said Jeyalakshmi, the present landlord has purchased the property. In such circumstances, the tenant cannot contend that there is no landlord tenant relationship. 21. Even as per deposition of the tenant, he was aware of the fact that the present landlord has purchased the property. However, he has not chosen to pay the rent from the year 2014 onwards. This Court has held that the denial of title on the part of the tenant is not bonafide. The Courts below have concurrently found that the building is 80 years old and the landlord wants to demolish the same and put up a new construction. The tenant has not produced any document controverting the age of the building. In such circumstances, the authorities below have rightly ordered eviction. The Courts below have concurrently found that the building is 80 years old and the landlord wants to demolish the same and put up a new construction. The tenant has not produced any document controverting the age of the building. In such circumstances, the authorities below have rightly ordered eviction. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts below. 22. Considering the fact that the petitioner is running a sweet stall and bakery in the petition mentioned premises, time is granted till 31.08.2025 to vacate and handover the possession. 23. In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in the revision petitions. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.