Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3530
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
Jabarullakhan - Appellant
Vs.
Lucas - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 1401 of 2016, 1402 of 2016; Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 6816 of 2016, 6817 of 2016
Decided On : 25-09-2018
M. Vallinayagam, Adv., J. Anandkumar, Adv., R. Sundar Srinivasan, Adv.
The main legal point established is that a tenant's denial of the landlord's title must be bona fide, and failure to seek a declaration of title may demonstrate lack of bona fides.
Headnote:
Rent Control - Eviction - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Section 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(vii)
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed for eviction of the Revision petitioner from the petition premises. The Revision petitioner claimed that the property did not belong exclusively to the respondent and that a partition had taken place among the family members. The respondent alleged collusion between the Revision petitioner and another party and denied the Revision petitioner's claim of property allotment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Revision petitioner's denial of the respondent's title was not bona fide, as the Revision petitioner failed to seek a declaration of title and did not furnish relevant documents. The Court also held that the findings in a previous suit did not amount to res judicata, but the Revision petitioner's actions lacked bona fides.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Revision petitioner's denial of the respondent's title was bona fide, and whether the findings in a previous suit constituted res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Revision petitioner's failure to seek a declaration of title and lack of evidence demonstrated a lack of bona fides. The Court also determined that the findings in the previous suit did not amount to res judicata.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Civil Revision petitions, sustaining the orders passed by the Appellate Authority.
G.R. Swaminathan, J.
The respondent herein filed R.C.O.P.Nos.7 and 8 of 2010 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Devakottai, for evicting the Revision petitioner herein from the petition premises. The learned Rent Controller by order dated 24.10.2013 dismissed both the petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed R.C.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2014 before the Appellate Authority/Subordinate Court, Devakottai. The Appellate Authority by order dated 29.01.2016, reversed the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller and allowed the appeals. Challenging the same, the Revision petitioner has filed these Civil Revision petitions.
2. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The learned Senior counsel contended that the very R.C.O.P., filed by the respondent herein is clearly not maintainable. This is because, the property in question originally belonged to one Vallavan Rawuther @ Katchu Rawuther. The said Vallavan Rawuther passed away in the year 1974. He died leaving behind his wife and three daughters and three sons as his legal heirs.
4. Kamarudeen was one of the three sons. There is intrinsic evidence that the said Kamarudeen, did not pre-decease Vallavan Rawuthar. He died later. Kamarudeen's share in the estate of the said Katchu Rawuther devolved on Ahamed Jalaludeen. There was a partition involving the respondent, his elder brother Fakkir Mohamed and the son of Kamarudeen, namely, Ahamed Jalaludeen. The property in question was allotted to the said Ahamed Jalaludeen.
5. The case of the Revision petitioner is that though the respondent originally inducted him as the tenant, it was he who informed him about the said allotment and based on the said information given by the respondent, the Revision petitioner purchased the property in question from the said Ahamed Jalaludeen. Since dispute appeared to have arisen between the respondent herein and the said Ahamed Jalaludeen, the Revision petitioner filed O.S.No.66 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai, seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The said suit was however dismissed on 06.04.2011 on technical grounds.
6. The learned Senior counsel would contend that admittedly the property in question did not belong exclusively to the respondent herein. He was more like a Manager who was collecting rent on behalf of the co-owners. From the evidence on record, it clearly appears that a partition had taken place among the members of the family of the said Katchu Rawuther. Ex.R3 was marked during the cross examination of the respondent. It is a sale deed executed by the respondent Lucas in favour of one Mohamed Badusha. He has mentioned in the said Sale Deed that the photocopies of the parent document, tax receipts as well as partition document have been handed over to the purchaser. The Revision petitioner did not question the title of the respondent till his purchase from the said Ahamed Jalaludeen. The respondent herein had filed the said R.C.O.P., under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(vii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Therefore, the burden to prove lack of bona fides on the part of the Revision petitioner in the matter of denial of title is only on the landlord. Only if the landlord had discharged the burden cast on him, the onus would shift to the tenant.
7. In this regard, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner placed on reliance the decision (J.J. Lal (P) Ltd., V. M.R. Murali, (2002) 3 SCC 98). The learned Senior counsel would also contend that the Rent Controller could not have undertaken an exercise of investigating the respective title claims and what the Rent Controller was expected to do so was to see if there was the bona fides on the part of the tenant in the matter of denial of title. Once a finding is recorded in that regard in favour of the tenant, the landlord should be straighta
