Tenant denying title of landlord

This revision is by the landlord.

2. Petitioner succeeded before the Rent Controller. But the order was reversed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the revision.

3. In the eviction petition, landlord wanted eviction of the tenant on the ground that he has denied his title without any bona fides and also committed wilful default in paying the rent, and that the bona fide requires the building by way of additional accommodation.

4. It is not disputed by the tenant that he has executed Ex.A-7 lease deed, which is a registered document. He has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.75 per mensem as rent. When the rent was not paid as agreed, notice was issued, for which a reply was sent by the respondent herein, denying the title of the landlord. It is averred in the eviction petition that the denial of title is lacking in good faith and the person referred to in the reply notice has no right in the building and that the respondent has come into possession only on the basis of Ex.A-7.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent herein, he has stated that the property belongs to one K.C. Ramanatha Iyer and his family, now settled at Bombay, that their agent was one Thangasabarathina Deekshithar, that the respondent took the property from the said Deekshithar on 4. 1979 on a monthly rental of Rs.20 for the first two years, and at Rs.25 for the later years, and that he was also directed to pay the municipal taxes. According to the respondent (tenant), there was no building at the time when he took the same on lease, and that the building which was there already had completely dilapidated and there was no superstructure at all, and it was only a vacant site. He has said that after he took the property on lease, he put up a new superstructure now standing in the property by spending more than Rs.10,000. It is said that in or about August, 1980, the petitioner herein came along with certain rowdy elements and told the respondent that the property belongs to him and that either the respondent should vacate the property or attorn to him as tenant. When the respondent told him about the tenancy with Ramanatha Iyer, the petitioner threatened that unless the respondent executed a rent deed and attorns to him he will be thrown out of the property. Therefore, due to fear of life and also to avoid litigation, violence and unnecessary disputes and also to avoid waste of money invested by him in the improvement of the property, he executed Ex.A-7 rent deed out of compulsion and coercion. According to the respondent, he has been enjoying the entire property with all the trees thereon. He further says that he is prepared to attorn the tenancy provided the petitioner herein proves his title through court of law, in the presence of other claimants. He wants the petition to be dismissed.

6. The Rent Control Court, after taking evidence, came to the conclusion that the denial of title is not bona fide, and the respondent herein, after having executed Ex.A-7, is estopped from denying the title of the petitioner. While coming to such a conclusion, the court also held that the building was constructed by the petitioner, and the tax was also paid by the revision petitioner. It also came to the conclusion that even though the site on which the superstructure now stands belonged to Ramanatha Iyer as alleged by the respondent, that will not stand in the way of the revision petitioner seeking eviction, if, as per Ex.A.

7, landlord and tenant relationship is created. It also took into consideration the definitions of ‘landlord’ and ‘tenant’ as provided in the Rent Control Act. In that view of the matter, the Rent Controller came to the definite conclusion that the tenant is liable to be evicted. It also found that the rent has also not been paid eversince Ex.A-7. Eviction was ordered, giving some time to the tenant for vacating the premises. 7. On appeal by the tenant, the Appellate Authority held that the denial of title is bona fide. For the said pur