The landlord must prove ownership to establish a valid landlord-tenant relationship; failure to do so results in dismissal of eviction petitions.

COMMON ORDER

These civil revision petitions have been filed by the landlord challenging the concurrent dismissal of rent control petitions for eviction on the ground of willful default.

(A)Factual Matrix:

2.According to the petitioner averments, the petitioner society was initially registered in the year 1981 with Registration No.33 of 1981. The said society owned the petition mentioned property and the tenants were inducted by the society into the property in the year 1998. Since the society have become defunct, the registration got lapsed.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the Society was registered afresh in the year 2003 on 13.01.2003 vide Registration No.5 of 2003. The office bearers of the new society demanded rent from the tenants. Since there was default, a legal notice was issued to them on 06.02.2003. Even thereafter the tenant did not pay the rent. They also disputed the landlord tenant relationship, Hence, RCOP.Nos.17 of 2003, 4 of 2004 and RCOP.Nos.14, 17 to 21 of 2003 and 4 of 2004 were filed before the Rent Controller, Aruppukkottai for evicting the tenant on the ground of willful default.

4.The Rent Controller without properly appreciating the documents filed on the side of the Society, arrived at a finding that the denial of title is bonafide and proceeded to dismiss the eviction petitions. Challenging the same, RCA Nos. 1 to 7 of 2019 were filed before the Subordinate Court, Aruppukkottai.

5.Pending appeal, this Court in CRP(MD).No.1788 of 2009 dated 18.06.2019 had upheld the title of the society. The said order was filed as an additional document before the appellate Court. The appellate Court had dismissed the additional evidence application and proceeded to confirm the dismissal of eviction petitions. Challenging the same, the present revision petitions have been filed.

(B)Submission of counsels appearing on either side:

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the tenants were inducted in the petition mentioned premises in the year 1988 by erstwhile sangam. The tenant do not claim any title to the property. They only set up title upon the erstwhile sangam. Since the sangam has become defunct, a new society was registered and automatically, the new society became the landlord. Despite legal notice, the tenants have refused to pay rent. In such circumstances, the denial of title is not bonafide and the tenants having admittedly committed willful default, the Courts below ought to have ordered eviction.

7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the buildings are owned by Aruppukottai Puliampatti Maninagaram Vaniga Vaisiya Vaniar Community. The building were constructed by the said community and let out to various tenants. The affairs of the said community are managed by Ambalam and Kariyakar who hold the office by hereditary succession. Therefore, the community alone continues to be the owner of the premises. The said community has not transferred their right in the property to the newly formed trust. The tenants are regularly paying rent to the Amabalam and Kariyakar and there is no willful default.

8.The learned counsel for the respondents had further contended that the trust deed or the byelaws of the society do not reflect that the petition mentioned properties are owned by the society. There is no record whatsoever to show that the new society is the landlord. The community which constructed the building has not transferred its right to newly formed society. An attempt that was made by the present society to include the petition mentioned petition in their byelaws but the same was rejected by the authority. Therefore, there is a bonafide dispute with regard to the title of the building. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek eviction.

9.The learned counsel for the respondents had further contended that the judgment in CRP(MD).No.1788 of 2009 would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Th