Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AR. LAKSHMANAN
N. Sankaran
Versus
R. Ramadoss & Another
C.R.P. No. 1285 of 1991 & C.M.P. No. 704 of 1997
Decided On :Decided On : 20-08-1997
TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT, 1960 - SECTION 10(2)(I), 10(2)(II)(B), 10(2)(VI) & (VII) - EVICTION - DENIAL OF TITLE - SUB-LETTING - WILFUL DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF RENT - INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS - FACTUAL ANALYSIS - LEGAL PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant and sub-tenant under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b), 10(2)(vi) & (vii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, alleging wilful denial of title, sub-letting, and wilful default in payment of rent. The tenant remained ex parte, while the sub-tenant contested the proceedings. The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority ordered eviction, finding that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and had wilfully denied the landlord's title, and that the sub-tenant was bound by the order of eviction.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, holding that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and had wilfully denied the landlord's title, and that the sub-tenant was bound by the order of eviction. The Court found that the tenant had not paid rent from the date of purchase by the landlord, despite a registered notice, and that the denial of title was mala fide and intended to prolong the proceedings. The Court also found that the sub-tenant was a party to the proceedings and had not challenged the landlord's account books, which showed that the tenant had been paying rent to the landlord's vendor.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and had wilfully denied the landlord's title. 2. Whether the sub-tenant was bound by the order of eviction.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent and had wilfully denied the landlord's title, based on the following findings: - The tenant had not paid rent from the date of purchase by the landlord, despite a registered notice. - The denial of title was mala fide and intended to prolong the proceedings, as evidenced by the tenant's reply notice to the landlord and her failure to appear before the Court. 2. The Court held that the sub-tenant was bound by the order of eviction, based on the following findings: - The sub-tenant was a party to the proceedings and had not challenged the landlord's account books, which showed that the tenant had been paying rent to the landlord's vendor. - The sub-tenant had not raised any independent contention of his own, and there was no collusion between the landlord and the tenant.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition and the connected civil miscellaneous petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority and ordering eviction of the tenant and sub-tenant.
1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the Appellate Authority (Sub-Court, Nagapattinam) dated 2.4.91 and made in R.C.A.No 134/89, confirming the order of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Tiruvarur dated 17.10.89 in RCOP No. 31/80.
2. The first respondent herein (landlord) filed RCOP No. 31/80 against the 2nd respondent herein and the petitioner for their eviction under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2) (ii) (b), 10(2)(vi) & (vii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’). The landlords case is that he has purchased the building in question and other buildings with the leasehold rights thereon from one Ramanathan Chettiar who was the previous owner under a registered sale deed dated 7.3. 80 (Ex.A-1) for valuable consideration. The said Ramanathan Chettiars father whose name is also Ramanathan Chettiar purchased the building in question and other building and site situate in R.S. Nos. 588 to 594 in No. 2, Vijayapuram Village in a Court auction sale held on 29.10.1935 in E.P. No. 482/34 in execution of SC. 75/31 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruvarur. The said sale was confirmed by the Court on 29.10.1935 (EX.A-2) and the Court auction purchaser took possession of the property on 24.3.39 through Court. The sites over TS Nos. 588 to 594 belong to the Abishega Kattalai of Shri Thiagarajaswamy Devasmanam, Tiruvarur. After purchase, the Court auction purchaser and his son Ramanathan Chettiar have been treated as tenants of the site by the Devasmanam and rents have been received from Ramanathan Chettiar. The last of the lease deeds executed by Ramanaman Chettiar in favour of the Devasthnam is dated 1.7.71. The said Ramanaman Chettiar was a tenant from month to month and the same is not terminated in any manner known to law. After the purchase, the municipal assessments for the petition building and other buildings which stood in the name of Ramanathan Chettiar has been transferred in the name of the first respondent herein and he is paying taxes to Thiruvarur Municipality. He is the owner of the petition building and other buildings. He has also paid the rents due by Ramanathan Chettiar for the site to the Devasthanam. The 2nd respondent herein (S. Sengammal) took the building from Ramanathan Chettiar on a monthly rent of Rs. 6/- as was paying rent to Ramanathan Chettiar. The tenant so paid the rent for some years and later defaulted taking advantage of the fact that Ramanathan Chettiar is a permanent resident of Devakkottai. He has paid municipal taxes for the building on behalf of Ramanathan Chettiar and the same was adjusted in the rent. After the first respondent has purchased, he gave a notice to the tenant Sengammal, calling upon her to pay the rent from 7.3.80 (date of purchase) and further calling upon them to vacate and surrender possession of the building. The tenant gave a reply notice on 23.6.80 through her advocate in which she has wilfully denied the title of the landlord Ramanathan Chettiar. She claims to be a direct tenant of the site under the Devasthanam. According to the landlord, the second respondent Sengammal tenant took the building under Ramanathan Chettiar and therefore, she is bound to pay the rent and surrender possession to Ramanathan Chettiar and now to the first respondent herein Ramadoss and to none else. The devasthnam has no right to collect the rent from Sengammal or any other tenant of Ramanathan Chettiar for the simple reason that the lease in favour of Ramanathan Chettiar is still subsisting and ensures for the first respondent also. The petitioner-sub tenant has wilfully denied the title of the landlord and the same is absolutely mala fide . The tenant Sengammal and Sankaran who claims right under the said Sengammal are liable to be evicted from the building in question for wilful denial of title. Admittedly, the tenants have not paid the rent to the landlord from 7.3.80 inspite of a registered notice. The
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
