Back
2006 Supreme(Mad) 3020
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR
N. Palani - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Estate of Janakiah Chetty, Rep. by .J. Jayachandran - Respondents
C.R.P.PD.Nos.1017 and 18 of 2006
Decided On : 09 November 2006
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Rent Control Act regarding the authority to file eviction petitions in the name of the deceased landlord's Estate and the entitlement of the eldest son cum Manager of the Estate to represent the Estate in such matters.
Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act) - Eviction - Section 10(2)(i) - Section 10(8) - Section 2(6)
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Rent Control Act. The petitioner contested the cases by filing counter petitions to decide the issue of maintainability of the rent control original petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the RCOP filed in the name of the Estate of deceased erstwhile landlord represented by his eldest son is perfectly valid in the eye of law and maintainable. The court dismissed the civil revision petitions with cost.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the eviction petition filed by the respondent in the name of the Estate of the deceased landlord, and the authority of the eldest son to represent the Estate without all legal heirs being impleaded.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that as per the Rent Control Act, the eldest son cum Manager of the Estate of the deceased landlord is entitled to file the eviction petition in the name of the Estate. The court also emphasized that all the legal heirs are not necessarily to be impleaded as landlords in the rent control petitions.
Final Decision: The civil revision petitions were dismissed with cost, and the petitioner was directed to deposit the cost amount in the credit of the Honourable Chief Justice Relief Fund, High Court, Madras within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
(Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act)1960 as amended by Act XXII of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 against the order judgment and decree dated 2.1.2006 and 9.9.2005 delivered in R.C.A.No.891 and 94 of 2005 respectively on the file of the VII Judge, the Court of Small Cause, Madras preferred against the order and judgment dated 24.6.2005 of the XII Judge, Court of Small Causes Madras passed in M.P.No.396 of 2005 in R.C.O.P.No.20 of 2005 on its file and preferred against the order and judgment dated 22.7.2004 of the XI Judge, Court of Small Causes Madras passed in M.P.No.148 of 2004 in R.C.O.P.No.1761 of 2005 on its file.)
Aggrieved over the judgment and decree delivered in R.C.A.No.891 of 2005 by the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai dated 2.1.2006 against the order dated 24.6.2005 passed in M.P.No.396 of 2005 in R.C.O.P.No.20 of 2005 on the file of the XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, and the judgment and decree delivered in R.C.A.No.94 of 2005 by the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai dated 9.9.2005 against the order dated 22.7.2004 passed in M.P.No.148 of 2004 in R.C.O.P.No.1761 of 2003 on the file of the XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, these civil revisions are filed.
2.Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner is a tenant and the respondent is landlord. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.20 of 2005 and R.C.O.P.No.1761 of 2003 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Rent Control Act. During pendency of the rent control proceedings the petitioner filed M.P.No.396 of 2005 in R.C.O.P.No.20 of 2005 to decide the issue of maintainability of the RCOP as preliminary issue and during enquiry in M.P.No.90 of 2004 he has also filed M.P.No.148 of 2004 in R.C.O.P.No.1761 of 2003 to decide the issue of maintainability of the RCOP as preliminary issue.
3. Before the Rent Controller during enquiry in the said miscellaneous petitions the respondent has marked Ex.R.2 to R7 as documents, but no document was marked on the side of the petitioner.
4. After elaborate enquiry, the learned Rent Controller has dismissed the miscellaneous petitions. Aggrieved over the said impugned orders the petitioner has preferred rent control appeals in R.C.A.Nos.891 of 2005 and R.C.A.No.94 of 2005.
5. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the rent control appeals filed by the petitioner.
6. Aggrieved over the same these civil revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that Section 10(8) of the Act clearly indicates that no person who is receiving the rent of a building merely as an agent of the landlord shall, except with the previous written consent of the landlord be entitled to apply for eviction of a tenant; that the payment of the rent made by the petitioner to the "Estate of Janakiah Chetty" alone will not confer the right on the respondent to file eviction petition; that on the demise of R.K. Janakiah Chetty, the property devolved on all the legal heirs of R.K. Janakiah Chetty, hence the eviction petition should have been filed by all the legal heirs or an administrator duly appointed by a competent court to administer the alleged estate of R.K.Janakiah Chetty by way of letters of administration or probate issued by competent court to enable the respondent to file the eviction petition in such capacity; that in the absence of proper presentation of the eviction petition by a person having suitable authority and capacity, the Rent Controller cannot go into the issues set out in the eviction petition without going into the initial question of the maintainability; that as the respondent had obtained a separate income tax "PAN NUMBER" in the name of the estate of R.K.Janakiah Chetty the petition as framed and filed by the respondent is not maintaina
