Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2718
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
S. Selvaraj & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Mr. R. Marimuthu & Ors. - Respondents
C.R.P (NPD) Nos.1966, 1967 of 2013
Decided On : 13-06-2018
For the Petitioners: M/s. Shah & Shah in both CRPs. for Mr. P. Dhananjayan.
For the Respondents: Mr. M.R. Uma Vijayan, Mr. P.V. Arul Pazham.
Headnote:
Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 116 and 25 - Tamil Nadu Buildings Control Act - Sections 8, 23 and 2 - Transfer of Property Act - Sections 111, 106, 10, 9 and 14 - Purchased Property by Sale Deed – False Allegation - According to petitioners they purchased property by deed of sale dated registered in office of Sub Registrar - Husband of vendor of petitioners by letter informed first respondent about sale in favour of petitioners and instructed him to attorn tenancy in favour of petitioners - First respondent failed to attorn tenancy and failed to pay monthly rent from April to March to petitioners - First respondent committed default in spite of repeated demands and requests without any sufficient reason and default is wilful wanton and deliberate - Petition premises was let out to first respondent for purpose of carrying on paint business in name and style of Valli Paints - First respondent has converted petition premises for running textile business in name and style of Valli Stores selling Track Shirts and whole sale business and issuing bills showing different address - First respondent has sublet petition premises to respondents 2 to 4 without written consent of petitioners - Petitioners issued notice to respondents - First respondent received said notice but did not sent any reply - Respondents have deliberately denied title of petitioners in respect of petition premises - Held, In case of non-residential building had been in continuous association with tenant for purpose of carrying on business of tenant up to death of tenant and continues to carry on such business thereafter and A person continuing in possession after termination of tenancy in his favour but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building by its tenant or a person to whom collection of rents or fees in a public market cart stand or slaughter house or of rents for shops has been formed out or leased by a Municipal Council or a Panchayat Union Council or Municipal Corporation of Madras or Municipal Corporation of Madurai - A reading of this definition supports contention of petitioners and it does not support contention of learned counsel for respondents - As per this section tenant is a person who is liable to pay rent or on whose behalf rent is payable - From materials on record it is seen that first respondent as a tenant is liable to pay rent - Whatever amounts paid by second respondent as rent is only on behalf of first respondent - Petitions are allowed.
1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against judgment and decree passed in RCA Nos.650 & 651 of 2011 dated 02-03-2013 on the file of VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai reversing the decree and judgment passed in RCOP No.825 of 2009 dated 26.09.2011 on the file of X Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2. The parties and issues involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same and therefore, these revision petitions are disposed of by common order.
3. The parties are referred as arrayed in RCOP. The petitioners are landlords and the respondents are the tenants in RCOP No.825 of 2009 on the file of X Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. The petitioners filed the above said RCOP against the respondents in both the Civil Revision Petitions for eviction on the ground of wilful default, different user, sub-letting and denial of title. The said RCOP was allowed on all the four grounds. Against the said order of the learned Rent Controller, the respondents 1, 3 and 4 filed RCA No.650 of 2011 and the second respondent filed RCA No.651 of 2011. The learned Appellate Authority allowed both the RCAs reversing the judgment of the learned Rent Controller. Against the said order, the present two Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners.
4. Facts of the case :-
4(a) According to the petitioners, they purchased the property by deed of sale dated 16.04.2008 registered as Doc.No.1273/2008 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Royapuram from one Mrs. M. Bhuvaneswari w/o M.P.S. Manoharan and others. One M.P.S.Manoharan, husband of the vendor of the petitioners, by letter dated 27.05.2008 informed the first respondent about the sale in favour of the petitioners and instructed him to attorn the tenancy in favour of the petitioners. The first respondent failed to attorn the tenancy and failed to pay the monthly rent of Rs.16,000/- from April 2008 to March 2009 (12 months) totalling to Rs.1,92,000/- to the petitioners. The first respondent committed default inspite of repeated demands and requests without any sufficient reason and the default is wilful, wanton and deliberate.
4(b) The petition premises was let out to the first respondent for the purpose of carrying on paint business in the name and style of Valli Paints. The first respondent has converted the petition premises for running textile business in the name and style of Valli Stores selling Track Shirts and whole sale business and issuing bills showing different address. The first respondent has sublet the petition premises to respondents 2 to 4 without written consent of the petitioners. The petitioners issued notice dated 09.03.2009 to the respondents. The first respondent received the said notice but did not sent any reply. The respondents have deliberately denied the title of the petitioners in respect of petition premises. For the above reason, they sought for eviction on the ground of subletting, different user, wilful default and denial of title.
4(c) The respondents 1, 3 and 4 filed counter statement. They contended that the petitioners are not able to recognise who are the tenants, the quantum of advance paid by the tenants, the purpose for which building as well the portion was let out and petitioners have come out with the present RCOP with false allegations. They denied that they have committed wilful default in payment of rent from April 2008 to March 2009, subletting, conversion and denial of title of the petitioners. The petitioners and respondents are relatives. The petitioners know the affairs of the respondents and only for the vengeance against the respondents, the petitioners have filed petition for eviction. The name of the first respondent is Selvam but he has been shown as Marimuthu. The respondents are brothers and are carrying on business jointly for the benefit and welfare of their family. The petitioners have suppressed the rent advance of Rs.1,75,000/-. The petitioners are evading receipt of rent and are giving evasive reply.
