The determination of title over the property in eviction proceedings is limited to the landlord-tenant relationship, and the rights of claimants over the property are protected through independent proceedings.

ORDER :

M.S. Ramesh, J.

1. Aggrieved over the orders passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai, Thiruvannamalai District in I.A. Nos. 6 & 7 of 2017 in HRCOP No. 10 of 2014 dated 26.04.2017, the present revisions have been preferred.

2. Heard Mr. G. Jayachandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Lita Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent.

3. The brief facts of the cases are as follows:

The landlord, who had filed the eviction petition, is the petitioner in both the revisions. When the landlord had filed an interim application in I.A. No. 6 of 2015 under Sections 11 (3) and 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the first respondent herein had filed two applications in I.A. No. 6 of 2017 and I.A. No. 7 of 2017 seeking to implead himself in the interim application in I.A. No. 6 of 2015 as well as in the main HRCOP. No. 10 of 2014. The learned Rent Controller had allowed both the applications through an order dated 26.04.2017 and thereby permitted the first respondent herein to be impleaded as a party respondent in both the petitions. Challenging the said order, the present revision petitions are filed.

4. The main ground raised by the implead petitioner is that, while the petitioner herein is the landlord of the western half of the demised premises, the eastern half of the demised premises is vested with the implead petitioner. The tenant was inducted by the petitioner herein for the western half and so far as the eastern half is concerned, he was inducted as a tenant by the ancestors of the implead petitioner in the year 1976 onwards. Since the petitioner herein is entitled to the western half of the demised premises alone and the petitioner herein representing the Kanda Nadar Vakaiyara, are the landlords of the eastern half, the eviction petition by the civil revision petitioner alone for the entire premises, is not maintainable. As such, he had filed the application to implead himself as a party respondent in the eviction proceedings.

5. The learned Rent Controller had observed that the petitioner herein is not the absolute owner of the entire premises and that the Commissioner of Thiruvannamalai Municipality had passed an order to collect property tax for both the western and eastern portions separately from the petitioner herein and the implead petitioner. In view of the dispute in the title to the demised premises, the implead petitions came to be allowed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tenant, while giving evidence, had admitted his tenancy under the petitioner herein for the entire premises. According to him, the petitioner herein is the owner of the entire demised premises of both the portions, totally measuring 4864 Sq. feet and the implead petitioner is only a stranger insofar as the property is concerned. Even otherwise, he would submit that in eviction proceedings, the learned Rent Controller cannot determine the title of the property and even assuming that the implead petitioner has any right or title over the portion of the demised premises, his impleadment in an eviction proceedings is not warranted. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on various judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court.

7. The learned counsel for the implead petitioner on the other hand submitted that the Commissioner of the Thiruvannamalai Municipality has already determined to collect property tax for the eastern portion of the demised premises from them through his proceedings. According to the learned counsel, they are the landlords of the eastern portion of the demised premises wherein the tenant was inducted by his ancestors. Since there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties for the eastern portion of the demised premises, they are the proper and necessary party to the eviction proceeding. The learned counsel also relied upon three decisions of t