Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2895 (MAD)

Karan Textiles v. Gayatri Devi Sarawagi

2025-08-08

P.B.BALAJI

body2025
ORDER : The tenant is the revision petitioner, challenging the order in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in RLTA.No.238 of 2023 on the file of the learned XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, permitting the subsequent purchaser to be impleaded in RLTA. 2.I have heard Mr.Sandeep Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the respondents. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would challenge the findings of the Rent Tribunal on the ground that the proposed party cannot be impleaded in the appeal proceedings, as there is no cause of action insofar as the proposed party is concerned. He would also state that the proposed party, pursuant to his purchase, has accepted rents from the revision petitioner and therefore, his remedy to seek recovery of possession is lost as a contract comes into existence between the petitioner and the proposed party. He would also state that the Sale Deed in favour of the proposed party is silent about the premises being occupied by the tenant and the rights being made over to the proposed party, namely the purchaser. He would therefore pray for the revision being allowed. 4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that having purchased the property from the landlord, who has filed an eviction petition and also having been successful in the same, the rights that were available to the vendor of the proposed party was certainly available to the purchaser as well and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order of the Rent Tribunal permitting amendment. He would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision. 5.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. 6.The sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the erstwhile landlord himself had sought for eviction alleging that there was a failure to enter into a tenancy agreement between the said landlord and the petitioner/tenant, there is no question of permitting the purchaser of the landlord to continue the proceedings initiated by the erstwhile landlord. It is the primordial contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when there is admittedly no tenancy agreement between the petitioner and the respondents and when failure itself cannot be alleged, as contemplated under Section 4(2) r/w 21(2)(a) in view of the purchase of the property by the proposed party only after the coming into force of the Act, the rights that are available to the purchaser are not under the special enactment, but the purchaser has to take recourse only to ordinary common law remedy. 7.No doubt, the eviction was sought for under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act alleging that there has been a failure to enter into an tenancy agreement as contemplated under Section 4(2) r/w 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act . The Sale Deed also does not mention about the tenancy or the eviction proceedings initiated by the erstwhile landlord, who has sold the property to the purchaser, who is the proposed party. After the order of eviction came to be passed, the tenant has preferred an appeal in RLTA.No.238 of 2023 and it is in the said appeal that the purchaser has sought to implead himself and the Rent Tribunal has also permitted the same. 8.It is not in dispute that the property has been sold by the erstwhile landlord to the purchaser, who sought impleadment in the RLTA. In fact, it is the very case of the tenant that the purchaser has subsequently received rents from the petitioner and therefore, a new tenancy is created and the purchaser cannot step into the shoes of the vendor and seek to continue the proceedings. Section 2(c) of the Act defines a landlord or a land owner or a lessor to mean a person who receives or is entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, on his own account, if the premises were let to a tenant, and shall include (i) his successor-in-interest (ii) a trustee or guardian or receiver receiving rent for any premises or is entitled to so receive, on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of, any other person such as minor or person of unsound mind who cannot enter into a contract. Therefore, when the very definition of landlord includes his successor-in-interest, a purchaser is certainly a successor in interest of the landlord, who chose to initiate RLTOP proceedings against the revision petitioner. Therefore, when the very definition of landlord includes his successor-in-interest, a purchaser is certainly a successor in interest of the landlord, who chose to initiate RLTOP proceedings against the revision petitioner. Consequently, as a successor in interest, the purchaser steps into the shoes of the erstwhile landlord and all rights and remedies that are available to the said landlord are equally available to the purchaser as well. The inclusive definition of landlord is sufficient to permit the purchaser to implead himself in the RLTA proceedings. 9.In fact, a right has already accrued to the erstwhile landlord with the Rent Court passing an order of eviction. Therefore, as a person, who has purchased the property for valuable consideration, he is certainly entitled to seek his impleadment to ensure that the order of eviction that has been passed by the Rent Court is confirmed by the Rent Tribunal and consequently, the decree is also executed. 10.I am unable to countenance the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the case on hand, when eviction is sought for under Section 21(2)(a), the impleadment of a purchaser is not permissible. In view of the discussion regarding the definition of landlord, the argument is not available to the revision petitioner. Even with regard to the contention that the purchaser has received rents from the petitioner and therefore, a new tenancy is created is also not sustainable. Under the new Act, the question of concept of the oral tenancy is unknown and what is necessary is for the parties to enter into a written contract and also register the same before the Rent Authority. In the light of the above, the mere fact that the purchaser received rents would not amount to creation of new tenancy and disentitle the purchaser from stepping into the shoes of his vendor and continue the proceedings for recovery of possession. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Rent Tribunal permitting impleadment. 11.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, considering that RLTA is pending from 2023 onwards, a direction is issued to the XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, to dispose of RLTA.No.238 of 2023 on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.