Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3731
High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH
K.B.Nawabjan
Versus
Lodd Ramgopal & Others
S.A.No.1052 of 2004 and C.M.P.No.7770 of 2004
Decided On : 03-09-2012
For the Petitioner:S.Parthasarathy for N.Damodaran, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, V.Raghavachari, Advocate.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - SUIT FOR EVICTION - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - DENIAL OF TITLE BY SUB-TENANT - PROCEDURE - BONA FIDE DENIAL - ADJUDICATION BY RENT CONTROLLER - NECESSITY - CIVIL SUIT FOR EVICTION - MAINTAINABILITY - CONDITIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, the owner of the suit property, filed a suit for eviction of the defendants, alleging that they were trespassers and had no right to possess the property. The defendants claimed to be sub-tenants of the original tenant, Narasimhalu Chetty, who had died. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the defendants were authorized sub-tenants and that the plaintiff had not established that they were trespassers. The first appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and decreed the suit for eviction, holding that the defendants were trespassers and that the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the first appellate court erred in reversing the trial court's judgment. The court held that the defendants were not trespassers, but were sub-tenants of the plaintiff. The court further held that the plaintiff could not maintain a suit for eviction in the civil court without first obtaining a finding from the Rent Controller that the defendants' denial of the plaintiff's title was bona fide.
Issues: 1. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to order eviction of a sub-tenant whose status as a sub-tenant has been upheld in prior proceedings under the Rent Control Act only on the ground that on the death of the Chief Tenant his legal representatives could claim as tenants under the Rent Control Act? 2. Whether the appellant cannot claim the protection under the Rent Control Act as a representative of the deceased Chief Tenant whose interest he represents?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the civil court does not have jurisdiction to order eviction of a sub-tenant whose status as a sub-tenant has been upheld in prior proceedings under the Rent Control Act only on the ground that on the death of the Chief Tenant his legal representatives could claim as tenants under the Rent Control Act. The court further held that a sub-tenant can claim the protection under the Rent Control Act as a representative of the deceased Chief Tenant whose interest he represents.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court.
This appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.28 of 2002 dated 13.01.2004 in reversing the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court made in O.S.No.4987 of 1976 dated 16.02.2001 in dismissing the suit.
2. The appellant herein was the 7th defendant in the suit and the first respondent was the plaintiff and the respondents 2 to 6 were the defendants 2 to 6 and the respondents 7 to 15 were the defendants 9 to 17 before the trial Court. The rank of parties before the trial Court are being maintained for convenience.
3. The case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint would be as follows:
(a) The plaintiff is the owner of premises No.78-A, (Old No.108), General Patters Road, Madras-2. One S.Narasimhalu Chetty, father of defendants 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and the husband of the 2nd defendant, was a tenant of the said premises for non-residential purposes, under the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs.110/-. Defendants 7 and 8 are the sub-tenants of the entirety of the premises let into possession by the said S.Narasimhalu Chetty. The said Narasimhalu Chetty was in arrears of rent and he died on 10.09.1973. Many years prior to his death, the said Narasimhalu Chetty ceased to occupy the premises himself and he did not even carry on any business in the premises. After the death of the said S.Narasimhalu Chetty, the 1st defendant was paying the amounts due by his father towards the arrears.
(b) The first defendant, though not a tenant under the plaintiff and not having the status of a tenant in law, is collecting rents from defendants 7 and 8. The first defendant made payments to the plaintiff towards arrears due by his late father. On 11.02.1975, the first defendant paid the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards damages for use and occupation after verifying the accounts. A receipt was issued by the plaintiff for the said amount. However, the first defendant, surprisingly come to the plaintiff once again on 12.02.1975 and for reasons best known to the first defendant, he insisted that the plaintiff should accept him as the tenant and change the recital in the receipt issued by the plaintiff on 11.02.1975. The plaintiff refused to do so as neither the first defendant nor the defendants 2 to 6 and 17 are his tenants. Thereupon, the first defendant requested the plaintiff to refund the sum of Rs.2,000/-returning the receipt. The first defendant, after getting back the said sum of Rs.2,000/-surprisingly for the reasons best known to him, on 12.02.1975 sent a cheque for Rs.2,160/- along with a letter containing utterly false allegations that the amount represents the arrears of rent up to January, 1975. The said cheque has been returned to the first defendant along with the letter of the plaintiff's Advocate, dated 20.02.1975.
(c) The defendants 1 to 6 and 17 are not his tenants and have no legal status of tenants, neither the 1st defendant nor the defendants 2 to 6 and 17 were associated with the said S.Narasimhalu Chetty in his business and in fact the said Narasimhalu Chetty was not carrying on any business in the plaintiff's premises for very many years before his death, he having sublet the entire premises to defendants 7 and 8 years ago.
(d) The first defendant, with a wholly malafide intention, has resorted to this attempt with the ulterior motive of earning huge amounts from defendants 7 and 8 attempting to become somehow or other a tenant under the plaintiff. The defendants are in wrongful possession of the plaintiff's premises.
(e) The defendants 7 and 8 who were sub-tenants under the late S.Narasimhalu Chetty, have no further right whatsoever to continue to be in possession of the plaintiff's premises after the death of the said Narasimhalu Chetty. There is not privity of contract or estate between the defendants and the plaintiff.
(f) By an Advocate's notice dated 20.02.1975 the defendants were called upon to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises
