Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 3658
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Kamakshi - Appellant
Versus
Karpagam - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 2647 of 2000, Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 13973, 16699 of 2000, Second Appeal No. 466, 1113 of 2003, VCMP No. 944 of 2003
Decided On : 28-09-2018
T.M. Hariharan, Adv., Hema Sampath, Adv., Muthappan, Adv., C. Sundaravadivel, Adv.
Headnote:
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 116 - Civil Procedure Code 1908 - Section 107 - Demolition And Reconstruction Of Building - Public Charitable Trust - Since parties and properties are one and same and subject matter of suits and civil revision petition is also same a common order is to be passed in all petitions - Unsuccessful tenant before both authorities below is revision petitioner before this court and respondent in civil revision petition is owner of property - Petitioner/tenant entered into a tenancy agreement - In their individual capacity they have executed said tenancy agreement to petitioner/tenant - Subsequently said property was sold to respondent/landlady and thereafter respondent/landlady issued a notice to petitioner/tenant seeking her to vacate from subject property for purpose of demolition and reconstruction of building and for owners occupation but she did not reply - Thereafter respondent filed before rent controller for eviction whereas petitioner/tenant strongly contended that respondent is not owner of property and therefore she is not entitled to file any rcop against her for eviction - After considering evidence and documents learned rent controller ordered for eviction - Aggrieved over said order petitioner/tenant filed before sub court which was transferred to principal sub court rent control appellate authority - - Challenging dismissal order passed in rca present civil revision petition is filed - Held, Though none appeared for appellant this court heard learned senior counsel appearing for respondent - Suit property does not belong to a public charitable trust but to family of original owners and not to any public trust - Agreement was among six sons - It was entered into for remembrance of a forefather - A puja was to be conducted every year on last sunday of karthigai month - Rental income from two shops was to be used for puja and feeding of persons in connection with puja - No public purpose is mentioned in document - Funds are entirely from family property and there is no scope for collecting contributions from outsiders for performance of puja - Outsiders are not permitted to participate in maheswara puja - Deed specified that any repair or expense would be borne only by family members - Priest who has been performing puja for past decades had spoken as a witness that only members of family attended puja - Petition is dismissed.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed petitioner/tenant against the order dated 11.07.2000 passed in R.C.A.No.20/2000 by the learned Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Tiruchirappalli, confirming the order dated 10.02.1995 passed in RCOP.No.19 of 1993 by the learned Rent Controller (DMC), Pudukkottai.
2. The Second Appeal in S.A.No.466 of 2003 is filed by the appellant/tenant against the Judgment dated 03.10.2002 passed in A.S.No.19/2002 by the learned Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, confirming the Judgment dated 26.12.1996 passed in O.S.No.666 of 1993 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Pudukkottai.
3. The Second Appeal in S.A.No.1113 of 2003 is filed against the Judgment dated 26.09.2001 passed in A.S.No.150 of 2000 by the learned Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai confirming the Judgment dated 11.07.2000 passed in O.S.No.139 of 2000 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
4. Since the parties and the properties are one and the same and the subject matter of the suits and Civil Revision Petition is also same, a common order is to be passed in all the petitions.
5. The unsuccessful tenant before both the authorities below is the revision petitioner before this court and the respondent in the Civil Revision Petition is the owner of the property. The petitioner/tenant entered into a tenancy agreement with one Mr. Ramamurthi and Mrs. Nagarathinam during the year 1987. In their individual capacity, they have executed the said tenancy agreement to the petitioner/tenant. Subsequently, the said property was sold during the year 1993 to the respondent/landlady and thereafter, the respondent/landlady issued a notice to the petitioner/tenant seeking her to vacate from the subject property for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction of building and for owners occupation, but she did not reply. Thereafter, the respondent filed RCOP.No.19 of 1993 before the Rent Controller, Pudukkottai for eviction, whereas the petitioner/tenant strongly contended that the respondent is not the owner of the property and therefore, she is not entitled to file any RCOP against her for eviction. After considering the evidence and documents, the learned Rent Controller ordered for eviction. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner/tenant filed R.C.A.No.3 of 1995 before the Sub Court, Pudukkottai, which was transferred to the Principal Sub Court, Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruchirappalli. The said RCA was also dismissed. Challenging the dismissal order passed in RCA, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
6. In the meantime, the petitioner/tenant filed O.S.No.666 of 1993 before the Principal District Munsif, Pudukkottai, seeking for injunction restraining the defendants therein from unlawfully dispossessing her from the suit property or demolishing the property except under due process of law. The said suit was dismissed, against which, the petitioner/tenant filed A.S.No.19 of 2002 before the Additional District Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai. The appeal was also dismissed with costs. Challenging the said concurrent Judgments, the petitioner/tenant filed Second Appeal in S.A.No.466 of 2003.
7. One Vasudevan and Others filed O.S.No.276 of 1994 before the Sub Court, Pudukkottai against Ramamurthy and Others including the respondent/landlady for framing a scheme with respect to the suit trust and for restoring the property to the Trust. The said suit was transferred to the Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli and re-numbered as O.S.No.139 of 2000. The said suit was dismissed. Against that order, the petitioner/tenant filed A.S.No.150 of 2000 before the Principal District Court, Pudukkottai. The said appeal was also dismissed with costs. Aggrieved against the said concurrent Judgments, the petitioner/tenant filed Second Appeal in S.A.No.1113 of 2003.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. I have also perused the documen
