Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 3328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, J.
Balaji – Appellant
Versus
T. Jothi – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition (Npd) No. 317 of 2011
Decided On : 07-03-2019
Advocate Appeared:
T.S. Baskaran, Adv., N. Nagusah, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of establishing surrender of earlier possession and the consequences of wilful default in the context of landlord-tenant relationships.
Headnote:
Eviction - Landlord Tenant Relationship - Ex.P.2, Ex.R.4 - The court discussed the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, the attornment letter, and the validity of the documents presented. The court also considered the issue of willful default and the respondent's attempt to deny the tenancy. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing surrender of earlier possession and the consequences of wilful default.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent for willful default in rent payment. The respondent claimed she was not a tenant but a permissive occupant under an agreement with the petitioner's mother.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was originally a tenant and had attempted to deny the tenancy by presenting a subsequent document. The court also held that the respondent's conduct amounted to wilful default.
Issues: The main issues were the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship, the validity of the attornment letter, and the respondent's claim of permissive possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing surrender of earlier possession and held that the respondent's conduct amounted to wilful default, leading to eviction.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the Order of the Courts below was set aside. The respondent was granted two months to vacate the premises.
JUDGMENT :
N.Sathish Kumar, J.
Aggrieved over the concurrent finding of the Courts below in dismissing the petition filed for eviction on the ground for willful default, the present revision has been filed.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this revision is as follows :
The respondent is a tenant in respect of the ground floor premises of the Door No.29, Nainiappa Street, Chindadripet, Chennai 600 002 on a monthly rent of Rs.2000/-. The petitioner has become the owner of the premises by way of a settlement deed executed by his mother and grandmother. Prior to that, the respondent was paying rent regularly to the petitioner's mother till August 2002. Attornment notice has also been sent to the respondent by the mother of the petitioner on 03.10.2002. Even after that, the respondent has not paid the rent since 2002. Hence, the petition for eviction.
3. It is the contention of the respondent that she is not a tenant in the premises. She is a permissive occupant in respect of the petition portion and she was put in possession by the mother of the petitioner 9 years back by receiving a sum of Rs.85,000/- on the understanding that she shall occupy and enjoy the portion till the sum of Rs.85,000/- is refunded. She did not pay any rent to the said Valliammal. The respondent has not paid any amount to Valliammal. Therefore, she has also replied to the legal notice dated 3.10.2012 and also sent a reply on 27.12.2012. Hence, it is the contention of the respondent that there is no landlord tenant relationship existed between the parties.
4. On the side of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 were marked and on the side of the respondent, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5 were marked. The learned Rent Controller has dismissed the application by holding that there is no landlord tenant relationship existed between the petitioner and the respondent. The first appellate authority has also confirmed the Order of the Rent Controller. As against which, the present revision has been filed.
5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the respondent is originally a tenant under the mother of the petitioner. Thereafter, the property was settled in favour of the petitioner and the same was informed to the respondent by a letter of atornment dated 03.10.2002. The above letter has also been received by the respondent, but no reply was sent. The nature of rent payable by the respondent is also stated in the above letter. As the respondent failed to pay the rent, the petitioner had issued a legal notice dated 09.12.2002 and the respondent has sent a reply stating that there is no landlord tenant relationship existing between the petitioner and the respondent.
6. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that after the execution of the settlement deed and the attornment letter, dispute arose between mother and son. The mother has cancelled the settlement unilaterally which was challenged by the petitioner and such cancellation is also held invalid in the Court. Taking advantage of the dispute between the mother and the son, the respondent has taken a defence in the petition that there was no landlord tenant relationship and in fact there was a suit in O.S.No.2169 of 2004 pending between the mother and son at the relevant point of time. In the petition, the respondent has been examined as R.W.2 to show that there is no landlord tenant relationship and filed Ex.R.4 said to have been executed by the mother of the petitioner on 02.01.2004. The fact remains that the above document has been created subsequently. The reply received from the RTI also clearly show that no stamp paper was sold on the particular day. Therefore, the above document cannot be given much importance. The fact remains that in the attornment letter, the mother has clearly informed the tenant to pay the rent of Rs.2000/- to the petitioner. Further, the evidence of respondent and the documents filed by
