Relationship of landlord and tenant established.

This CRP has been filed by the petitioner herein against the dismissal of the interim application in M.P.No:56 of 2003 in RCOP. No.1890 of 2001 before the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes (Rent Controller), Chennai, questioning the jurisdiction of the authority to entertain a fair rent petition filed by the respondent herein under Section 4 of the Rent Control Act.

2. According to the petitioner the so called lease deed was a transaction sui generis in a nature amounting to all incidence arising out of a conveyance. On a cumulative reading of the various clauses in the so called lease deed it will be clear that the transaction though styled as a lease deed confers all rights of absolute ownership and is a transfer of all interest in immovable property in favour of the petitioner bank and that the said petition filed under Section 4 of the Rent Control Act should be dismissed. Earlier on the application filed by the Bank to try the issue of jurisdiction as preliminary issue was dismissed by the Rent Controller holding that the said issue can be decided along with other issues. Thereupon the petitioner herein filed CRP.No:586 of 2003 and this court by order dated 212. 2005 disposed of the said CRP directing that the Rent Controller should decide the question of jurisdiction as preliminary issue. Consequently, the Rent Controller by the impugned order dismissed the said application holding that there exists a landlord-tenant relationship. Aggrieved of the same, the present CRP is filed by the petitioner.

3. Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the learned Rent Controller without rendering any finding as to whether the dispute of title by the petitioner was bona fide or not which only decides the issue of jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, cannot go into the merits of the matter and dismiss the application. Even though Section 4 of the Rent Control Act does not contain a proviso as one finds under the second proviso to Section 10(1), the Supreme Court held that there are clear indications in the Act and Rules that the Rent Controller does not have the jurisdiction to decide the questions of law.

4. According to the learned Senior Counsel, as the issue in the present case revolves around the nature of a document, it is essential to take into account the principles with regard to construction of documents as laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions reported in AIR 1966 SC 1178; (1971) 1 SCC 562 and (1977) 1 SCC 17 wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that the true effect of a transaction may be determined from the terms of agreement considered in the light of the surrounding circumstances at the time of transaction and in each case, the court has, unless prohibited by statute, power to go behind the documents and to determine the nature of the transaction, whatever may be the form of the document". According to the learned senior counsel, the mere description of the deed will not be decisive of the essence of the transaction as the same isolated from the terms and provisions, may be misleading or a misnomer. When there exists mixed elements in an instrument disclosing several features, the court has to find out the predominant intentions of the parties executing the documents viewed from the essential aspect of the reality of transaction. It is his further contention that on a cumulative reading of the various clauses of the so called lease deed in question it is clear that the said transaction in question styled as a lease deed, parties being described as landlord and tenant and rent being mentioned will not make the document to be a lease deed since a reading of various other clauses clearly point to the predominant intention of the parties that the deed in question was absolute sale of the property in question by the respondents to the petitioner and as such in any event the dispute of title by the petitioner under the deed, of the respondent