P. V. Viswanathan vs K. Radhalakshmi - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 2297

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(Mad) 2297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
P.V. Viswanathan - Appellant
Versus
K. Radhalakshmi - Respondent
S.A.Nos.676 to 678, 701, 742, 743, 892 to 894, 908, 985 of 2016 and 17 and 18 of 2017 and C.M.P.Nos.12565 to 12567, 13252, 14077, 14078, 18069 to 18071, 18388, 20182 of 2016 and 213, 214, 7744, 2332 to 2335, 7748, 7749 of 2017 and 2475 to 2478 and 12136 of 2018
Decided On : 31-07-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram Senior Counsel for Ms. C. Uma.
For the Respondent: Mr. P. Subba Reddy.

Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - SUIT FOR EVICTION - DENIAL OF TITLE OF LANDLORD - ESTOPPEL - SECTION 116 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - URBAN LAND CEILING ACT, 1978 - REPEAL ACT, 1999 - WHETHER THE TENANTS ARE ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THE TITLE OF THE LANDLORD - WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE URBAN LAND CEILING ACT WERE COMPLETED BEFORE THE REPEAL ACT CAME INTO FORCE - WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT TOOK PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE SUIT PROPERTY BEFORE THE REPEAL ACT CAME INTO FORCE.
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a landlady, filed suits against the appellants, her tenants, for eviction from the suit properties. The appellants denied the title of the respondent and claimed that the suit properties had been acquired by the Government under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. The respondent contended that the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act were not completed and that the Government had not taken physical possession of the suit properties. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suits in favor of the respondent. The appellants filed second appeals.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appellants were estopped from denying the title of the respondent under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court further held that the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act were not completed and that the Government had not taken physical possession of the suit properties before the Repeal Act came into force. Therefore, the court dismissed the second appeals.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenants are estopped from denying the title of the landlord under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act? 2. Whether the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act were completed before the Repeal Act came into force? 3. Whether the Government took physical possession of the suit property before the Repeal Act came into force?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act estops a tenant from denying the title of the landlord at the commencement of the tenancy. This estoppel is not absolute and there are certain exceptions, such as when the landlord loses title subsequent to the tenancy or when the tenant is evicted by a paramount title holder. 2. The proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling Act were not completed before the Repeal Act came into force. Therefore, the proceedings were abated and the Government did not acquire title to the suit properties. 3. The Government did not take physical possession of the suit properties before the Repeal Act came into force. Therefore, the respondent was in possession of the suit properties when the Repeal Act came into force and she retained her title to the suit properties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the second appeals.

JUDGMENT :

1. S.A.No.676 of 2016 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2015 made in A.S.No.13 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2012 made in O.S.No.216 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, insofar as the prayer of eviction and modified the future damages fixed by the trial Court.

S.A.No.985 of 2016 is filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2016 made in A.S.No.55 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee, reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2014 made in O.S.No.423 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Poonamallee.

2. Issues involved in all these Second Appeals are one and the same and facts are same, except extent of the properties, date of agreements and amount of rent. In view of the same, the facts in S.A.No.676 of 2016 alone is referred to while deciding all the Second Appeals.

3. The appellants in the above Second Appeals are defendants in the respective suits filed by the respondent herein. All the Second Appeals are against concurrent findings of the Courts below, except S.A.No.985 of 2016.

Case of the respondent/plaintiff/landlady:

4. According to the respondent, she is owner of the suit property. She purchased the land measuring 1.75 Acres in Survey No.151 in Ramapuram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, in the year 1976 from one Gemini Ganesan. From the date of purchase, she is in possession and enjoyment of the properties. The suit properties form part of the larger extent. According to the respondent, the appellant had entered into a lease agreement on 15.10.1997 for running a factory on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- and paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- as security deposit. The tenancy is according to English calender. The appellant has to pay the rent every month. The lease came to an end on 15.10.2000. The appellant has been extending the tenancy on monthly basis. The respondent's family have constructed 47 sheds in their land and rented out the same to the appellant and others. The appellant has to pay monthly rent on or before 5th of every month. The appellant paid the rent from the date of agreement, until May 2008. The last rent paid by the appellant is for the month of May 2008. Suddenly, during the month of May 2008, the appellant ganging up with some other tenants, sent a letter dated 30.05.2008, through their association, stating that they would not pay the monthly rent in advance, but would pay only in the succeeding month. The appellant and other tenants sent individual letters dated 07.07.2008, stating that there is doubt about the ownership of the respondent and they have stopped paying the rent.

4(a). The respondent is owner of the suit property and patta has been issued in her name. Some property around the suit property was taken by the Government during the year 1983 to handover to a Company, where the respondent had major shares. The Government had not completed the formalities till the Repeal Act, 1999, came into force. The respondent issued notice dated 09.06.2008 for eviction of the appellant and for damages. The appellant sent a reply dated 16.06.2008, denying the title of the respondent/plaintiff and made false and untenable allegations. The appellant is denying the title of the respondent only with a view to extract huge money from the respondent as there was rumors that DLF, which was putting up huge buildings behind the suit property, had entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent. The respondent has no intention to sell the property to DLF or others. The appellant has lost the right of tenancy as per Section 111(g)(2) of the Transfer of Property Act, when he denied the title of the respondent. The appellant had damaged the suit property and damage caused is estimated at Rs.30,000/-. The appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.9,000/- as damages per month for use and occupation.

4(b). On these averments, the respondent has filed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(Mad) 2297

Cases Referred (11)