Back
2000 Supreme(SC) 628
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. RAMDOSS
Vs.
N. Packirisamy Chettiar
Decided on March 28, 2000
The specificity of premises in the sale deed is crucial in determining the landlord-tenant relationship.
Headnote:
Landlord - Dispute over premises - Court finds no legal infirmity in High Court's judgment - Appeal dismissed
Fact of the Case:
The appellant claimed to be the landlord of the disputed premises based on a registered sale deed. The trial court decreed the eviction suit, but the High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deed did not mention the specific premises in dispute, and therefore, the High Court's judgment did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The question of the appellant's status as the landlord was left open for adjudication in an appropriate forum.
Issues: Dispute over landlord-tenant relationship and title based on sale deed
Ratio Decidendi: The sale deed did not specify the disputed premises, leading the court to uphold the High Court's judgment and dismiss the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE appellant claims himself to be the landlord of the premises in dispute. The allegation is that one, Ramanathan Chettiar, by a registered sale deed, dated 7. 3. 80, transferred the premises in dispute in his favour. After the execution of the sale deed, the appellant brought a petition for eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent as well as on the ground of denial of title. The trial court decreed the suit. The appeal filed against the trial court decree was dismissed. However, the High Court, on a revision petition, filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) allowed the revision and set aside the judgment and order of the court below. Against the said judgment, the landlord is in appeal before us.
( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel, appearing for the appellant, argued that there was sufficient material on record to show that the appellant is the landlord of the premises in dispute and the High Court has erroneously held that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. We have looked into the record and find that the sale deed, on the basis of which the appellant claims title, does not mention Door No. 25b1 of which the respondent is the tenant. Therefore, we find that the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel, appearing for the appellant, then urged that there are evidence on record to show that the entire land on which this building is standing was transferred to the appellant by Ramanathan Chettiar and in that event, the appellant would be the landlord of the premises in dispute. Since the finding recorded by the High Court was that the appellant is not a landlord of the premises, as it is not mentioned in the sale deed, we leave this question open to be adjudicated in an appropriate forum.
( 4 ) WITH these observations we dismiss this appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.
