SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Mad) 535

High Court of Judicature at Madras
SINGARAVELU
Mazzban B. Irani & Others
Versus
S.R. Mazda, Executor of the Estate of R.F. Mazda
C.R.P.2709 of 1981
Decided On :Decided on: 30-11-1981

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:M/s. A.J. Abdul Razac & R.Md. Hithyathullah, Advocates.
For the Respondents:M/s. N. Sivamani & S. Radakrishnan, Advocates.

The executor of a deceased landlord's estate can file an eviction petition under the Rent Control Act without obtaining probate of the will.

Headnote:

RENT CONTROL ACT - PROBATE OF WILL - NECESSITY - SECTION 213 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT - INTERPRETATION - RENT CONTROLLER OR APPELLATE AUTHORITY - COURT OF JUSTICE - WILFUL DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF RENT - ARREARS OF RENT - LIMITATION - SECTION 106 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

The tenants challenged the eviction order passed against them on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and subletting. They argued that the eviction petition was not maintainable as the landlord, who was the executor of the deceased landlord's estate, had not obtained probate of the will.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority is not a Court of Justice for all purposes and S. 213 of the Indian Succession Act will not apply for purposes of eviction under the Rent Control Act. The court also held that the arrears of rent would include rent which has become time-barred and therefore, the landlord is entitled to evict the tenants even on the grounds of wilful default.

Issues: 1. Whether the eviction petition was maintainable without the landlord obtaining probate of the will? 2. Whether the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority is a Court of Justice for all purposes? 3. Whether the arrears of rent would include rent which has become time-barred?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act does not debar the use of a will of which no probate has been obtained as evidence for a purpose other than the establishment of a right as executor or legatee. 2. The Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority is not a Court of Justice for all purposes and S. 213 of the Indian Succession Act will not apply for purposes of eviction under the Rent Control Act. 3. The arrears of rent would include rent which has become time-barred.

Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with costs.

Judgment :-

1. The tenants are the revision petitioners. The respondent landlord S.R. Mazda, Executor of the Estate of R.F. Mazda, filed the application for eviction of the tenants in respect of a non-residential premises on grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and subletting. The tenants denied both the grounds and on evidence the Rent Controller found that though there are arrears of rent, they were barred by limitation and therefore, it does not come under the phraseology of ‘wilful default’. With reference to the ground of ‘sub-letting’, the Rent Controller accepted the same and ordered eviction. On appeal the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Now, the tenants have preferred this revision petition.

2. The case of the landlord was that the tenants who are running a hotel by name ‘Cafe National’ have sublet the premises unauthorisedly to a stranger, who is now running the said hotel. Of course, this was denied by the tenants. But, the landlord has let in overwhelming and clinching evidence, oral and documentary to prove the sublease. P.W.1 is the Executor of the Estate of the landlord and he is none else than the son of the original landlord. He has stated that the tenants are not in possession of the premises and that they have sublet the same for the purpose of running the hotel to one Kunhi Mohideen Kutty. His evidence is fully supported by the evidence of other witnesses, P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.2 is an Inspector of the Income-tax department and he proved Ex.P7 which is an income-tax assessment order for 1976-1977 and that is in the name of Kunhi Mohideen Kutti, the sub-tenant. Ex.P8 is the return of income submitted by a chartered accountant of the said Mohideen Kutti in respect of the hotel business which he is carrying on in the name of Cafe National at the petition building. P.W.3 is an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and the files relating to assessment of sales tax with respect to the business carried on by the sub-tenant Mohideen Kutti as proprietor of ‘Cafe National’ had been produced. P.W.3 has clearly stated that in the tax returns Mohideen Kutti is described as the proprietor of Cafe National situated in the demised premises. Ex.P11 is the certificate of registration showing that the sub-tenant has been registered as a dealer carrying on business known as ‘Cafe National- Ex.P12 is another certificate of registration issued to Mohideen Kutti as proprietor. Ex.P13 is a letter sent by Mohideen Kutti to the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer to insert his name as the proprietor of Cafe National. Ex.P14 series are the records of the Sales tax authorities containing the returns submitted by Mohideen Kutti. It was also gathered from Ex.P14 that the sales tax authorities conducted a raid on the hotel ‘Cafe National’ and in the notes of inspection marked as Ex.P15, Mohideen Kutti was found to be the proprietor of the hotel. Ex.P16 is the Sales tax Assessment Order in the name of the said tenant. What is more, the accounts of Mohideen Kutti disclose that he has paid a premium for the licence for the hotel to the extent of Rs. 4,200 to the tenant and the rent for the hotel to the extent of Rs. 5,797. Thus, the landlord has proved to the hilt that the tenants have sublet the premises to Mohideen Kutti who is running the hotel under the very same licence. Of course, the tenants have produced Exs.R3, R4 and R5 to show that the Municipal licence and the police licence for the hotel still stand in the name of M.B. Irani, namely, the first petitioner herein. But, they are a mere camouflage to cover the subletting and no prudent man, much less a business man, would change the licence in his name and openly conduct business as a subtenant. Two courts have found on clear evidence that the premises have been sublet to Mohideen Kutti, and therefore, this is a rending of fact which cannot be touched.

3. The revision petitioners-tenants were obviously conscious of the hollowness







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top