Lease agreement whether created relationship of landlord and tenant.

These two revision petitions are taken up with the consent of parties. The short facts which are necessary for the purpose of deciding these revisions are as follows: The respondent herein filed R.C.O.P. No.273 of 1988 and R.C.O.P. No.274 of 1988 for eviction of the petitioner from premises No.188, Linghi Chetty Street, Madras-1 and No.134, Angappan Naicken Street, Madras-1 under Secs.10(2)(i) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Act ’ ). The two grounds for eviction are that the petitioner is guilty of wilful default in payment of rent from 1.3.1987 to 30.11.1987 and that he has committed an act of waste impairing materially the value of the building and utility thereof. The petitions wee contested by the petitioner on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant as defined by the Act, as the parties were co-owners. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that a petition for eviction under the provisions of the Act could not be maintained by one co-owner against another co-owner.

2. The Rent Controller held that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parlies and the petitions for eviction were maintainable. He also held that the petitioner was guilty of wilful default though he found against the plea of act of waste. Thus, he passed an order of eviction against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner filed Appeals R.C.A.No.790 of 1990 and R.C.A.No.791 of 1990 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, who is the Appellate Authority, under Sec.23 of the Act. The respondent filed applications under Sec.11 of the Act for direction to the petitioner herein to pay the arrears of rent and failing compliance, stop all further proceedings in the appeal with a direction to quit and deliver vacant possession of the buildings. On those applications, the Appellate Authority passed orders on 4.9.1991 holding that the petitioner was a ‘tenant’ within the meaning of the Act under the respondent and was liable to pay rent with a consequent direction that the petitioner should deposit a sum of Rs.2,65,000 + Rs.1,32,500 on or before 3.10.1991 and adjourned the matter to 4.10.1991.

4. Challenging the correctness of the said order, these revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner. When they were posted for admission, the respondent had entered caveat and took notice. I granted interim stay and with the consent of counsel on both sides, directed the revision petitions themselves to be posted for final disposal along with the petitions for stay. That is how the petitions are heard early.

5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to one half share in both the buildings and the other half share is owned by other co There was a lease agreement dated 1.12.1979 under which T. & D. Dehganwala represented by (1) Tayebally Mohamedally, (2) Badruddin Mohamedally, (3) Mrs. S.Lehry, (4) Mrs.Gulhar Fakhruddin and (5) Miss. Fatema Tayebally granted a lease in or the petitioner herein with respect to both the buildings. I should state that there were lease agreements on the same day. It may be noted that the estate was represented persons including the petitioner on the one hand and they were compendiously described lessors while the petitioner was described as the lessee on the other. Among the parties No.3 to 5 are daughters of party No.1, who is the brother of the petitioner herein the said date, four documents were executed in all, two of them being lease agreements. Under the lease agreements, the petitioner agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.6,000 premises No.158, Linghi Chetty Street and Rs.2,500 for premises No.134, Angappa Street per mensem. The other two documents are agreements for adjusting the payable under the lease agreements from out of the joint account held by the lessors as co-owners. It is better to extract the relevant portion in the agreement prov