Rent centroller Appellate Authority not competent to decide validity of mortgage deed.

The landlord is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. He filed R.C.O.P. No.9 of 1987 on the file of the Rent Controller/District Munsiff, Tenkasi, for evicting the respondent/tenant from the property bearing Door No.354 situated in Ward No.15, Kadayanallur Municipality, originally belonged to one S. Esakki Chettiar The respondent took the property on lease from the said S. Esakki Chettiar for running a business on a monthly rent of Rs. 45/-. The petitioner obtained an Othi of the property on 10-12-1986 from the said S. Esakki Chettiar under Ex. A-1. The petitioner has been running a business in Door No.354 in Ward No.15 in a building belonging to one Kulathurammal, who wanted the petitioner to surrender the leasehold property. She had also issued notice demanding possession of the same from him. The petitioner as the Othidar is entitled to maintain the petition for eviction since he requires the building to run his business.

2. The respondent/tenant resisted the petition for eviction. According to him, the petition is a vexatious one and that the owner of the premises viz., S. Esakki Chettiar, who wanted to evict the respondent from the petition premises, tried his best and failed and thereupon, the respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 402 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Tenkasi, against the said S. Esakki Chettiar for permanent injunction. The suit was decreed in favour of the respondent. Thereupon, S. Esakki Chettiar filed H.R.C.O.P. No.19 of 1982 and the same was dismissed. The appeal in F.C.A. No.25 of 1983 preferred against the order of the Rent Controller was also dismissed. Therefore, with a mala fide intention, S. Esakki Chettiar has Othied his property in favour of the petitioner with a view to evict the petitioner through him. The Othi document is a sham and nominal document and the same is not binding on the respondent. There is no bona fide intention on the part of the petitioner to evict the respondent.

3. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction. The aggrieved tenant preferred R.C.A. No. 33 of 1987 before the Appellate Authority/Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi, reiterating the same contentions raised before the Rent Controller. The learned Appellate Authority, however, reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the eviction petition on the ground that there is no bona fide on the part of the landlord to evict the respondent. The Appellate Authority also held that the original owner S. Esakki Chettiar had failed in his attempt to evict the respondent from the petition premises as seen from Exs. B-1 to B-6 and, therefore, he has set up the present petitioner to file the eviction petition as an Othidar. The unsuccessful landlord has come to this Court by filing the above revision.

4. Mr. P. Peppin Fernando, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Appellate Authority is not competent to hold that the mortgage deeds not valid in law and that the Appellate Authority has also failed to note that all the earlier decisions between the respondent/tenant and the previous landlord S. Esakki Chettiar are not binding on the present petitioner. This apart, the Appellate Authority has also failed to note that the petitioner requires the premises in question for his own use and occupation and, therefore, the requirement of the petitioner is bona fide.

5. Per contra, Mr. G. Nagarajan, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner, who is a usufructuary mortgagee is not entitled to evict the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for his personal occupation and that the Othi document under Ex. A-1 is a sham and nominal document. This apart, the bona fide nature of the requirement has not been established in this case and that the present attempt on the part of the petitioner is a colourable transaction brought out by the owner S. Esakki Chettiar when he failed to evict the respondent herein on an earlier occasion.

6. In answer to the