Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1235
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA, J.
A. Natarajan & Others
Versus
Sakunthala (deceased) & Others
S.A. Nos. 1130 & 1653 of 2001 & .M.P. Nos. 3393 & 3394 of 2006
Decided on : 06-03-2013
For the Appearing Parties:M.L. Joseph for M/s. Chennai Law Associates, K.V. Ananthakrishnan for J. Saravanavel, Advocates.
The significance of obtaining a finding from the Rent Controller relating to the bona fide title dispute before filing a civil suit for eviction under the Rent Control Act.
Headnote:
Rent Control Act - Eviction Suit - 10(1) - 10(2) - 14 to 16 - The court discussed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and emphasized the importance of obtaining a finding from the Rent Controller relating to the bona fide title dispute before filing a civil suit for eviction. The court held that the jurisdiction of the civil court is impliedly barred, except to the limited extent specially provided by the statute, and any suit instituted by the landlord for eviction of a tenant from a building falling within the ambit of the Act, otherwise than as stipulated by the Section, is incompetent for lack of jurisdiction of the court and any decree of the court in such a subsequent decision of this court. The court also highlighted the significance of the Rent Controller's decision in determining the legitimacy of the denial of title by the tenant.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two second appeals arising from a judgment and decrees passed by the City Civil Court, Chennai. The appeals concerned the dismissal of a suit for partition and the reversal of a preliminary decree for partition. The dispute revolved around the ownership and possession of a property in Kilpauk, Madras, and involved conflicting claims of joint ownership and tenancy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4239 of 1994 were not justified in straightaway filing a suit for eviction before approaching the Rent Controller and obtaining a finding under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act relating to the bona fide nature of the plea of the occupiers of the suit property concerning title. The court also held that the first appellate court was not justified in omitting to decide an issue when there are other issues also to be decided. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.4919 of 1994 had not sufficiently supported their plea as set out in their plaint.
Issues: The issues included the jurisdiction of the civil court in eviction suits under the Rent Control Act, the significance of obtaining a finding from the Rent Controller relating to the bona fide title dispute, and the adequacy of the plaintiffs' plea in O.S.No.4919 of 1994.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of obtaining a finding from the Rent Controller relating to the bona fide title dispute before filing a civil suit for eviction. It also highlighted that any suit instituted by the landlord for eviction of a tenant from a building falling within the ambit of the Act, otherwise than as stipulated by the Section, is incompetent for lack of jurisdiction of the court and any decree of the court in such a subsequent decision of this court.
Final Decision: Both second appeals were dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
1. These two second appeals have been focussed by the respective plaintiffs, inveighing the common judgement and decrees dated 30.11.2000 passed by the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.Nos.70 of 1999 in confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.12.1998 passed by the learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court in O.S.No.4239 of 1994 and in reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.4919 of 1994.
2. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts, absolutely necessary for the disposal of these two second appeals would run thus:
[a] O.S.No.4919 of 1994 was filed by one Sakunthala and Vijayakumar the appellants in S.A.No.1653 of 2001 seeking the following reliefs:
(i) for partition of the suit property which is morefully described in the schedule hereunder into two equal shares and allocating one such share to the plaintiffs as their share by metes and bounds and for separate possession.
(ii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men and agents or whomsoever claiming under them from any manner interfering alienating or encumbering the property, which is morefully described in the schedule here under and
(iii) for costs.
(extracted as such)
mainly on the ground that the suit property described in the schedule of the plaint, which is extracted here under for ready reference
SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of land and superstructure comprised in Door No.28, (Old No.26) Kummalamman Koil Street, Tailors Road, Kilpauk, Madras 600 010 to an extent of 1595 sq.ft. In Survey No.200 in Block No.14 of Egmore village bounded on
1. North by door No.6, Veeraraghavan Street
2. South by Kummalamman Koil Street
3. East by Door No.29, Kummalamman Koil Street
4. West by Veeraraghavan land
within the sub-registration District of Periyamet and within the registration District of Madras.
originally belonged to one Ponnuswamy. As narrated by the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, Ponnuswamy had two sons, viz., Arumugam and Nagappan. The defendants are the persons claiming under Arumugam; whereas Nagappan had his son by name Thanthoni, who married Sakunthala the first plaintiff and they gave birth to plaintiff No.2-Vijayakumar. Two superstructures were raised and one is under the occupation of Arumugam and after his death, it is under the occupation of the defendants. Whereas the said Sakunthala and Vijayakumar are in the another building raised by their predecessor. While so, the defendants' without any manner of right started giving trouble to the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Whereupon it necessitated the plaintiffs to file the suit for partition.
[b] Whereas the defendants' filed the written statement resisting the suit setting out various pleas, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:
The averments in the plaint were nothing but a load of baloney fraught with falsity. There was no joint enjoyment of the property between Arumugam and Nagappan and in fact the genealogy as sought to be projected in the plaint as well as during the argument on the plaintiffs' side, is having no legs to stand. In fact, the plaintiffs' are not at all the descendants of Ponnuswamy. It was Ponnuswamy, who occupied the entire property described in the schedule of the plaint and the said Nagappan entered into the B scheduled property described in the plaint in O.S.No.4239 of 1994 as a tenant under Ponnusamy. They have been paying rent also to Ponnuswamy; subsequently, inasmuch as the plaintiffs' started disputing the title of the descendants of Ponnuswamy, viz., the defendants' herein, have filed the suit in O.S.No.4239 of 1994 seeking the following reliefs:-
-to direct the defendant to pay the rent arrears of Rs.1,800/-due from 31.3.1991 till 31.3.1994;
- to direct the defendants to pay damages at the rate of rent Rs.50 per month from the date of termination of the tenancy i.e., from 1.4.94 till the date of delivery of the B sched
