A landlord loses the right to pursue eviction proceedings after selling the property unless rental arrears are assigned to the new owner.

ORDER :

R.Vijayakumar, J.

These revision petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed in I.A.No.14 of 2022 in RCOP.No. 8 of 2017 and I.A.No.15 of 2022 in RCOP.No.9 of 2017 on the file of the Rent Controller Cum District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.

(A) Factual Background:

2.These Rent Control Petitions have been filed by the landlord namely Muthulakshmi and Muthukumaran as against their tenant namely Balamurugan and to evict him from two non-residential building bearing Door No.119E and Door No.119F.

3.As per averments in the Rent Control Petitions, the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent and therefore, he is liable to be evicted. Both the Rent Control Petitions were filed in the month of July and August 2017.

4.Pending Rent Control Proceedings, the landlord has sold the petition mentioned premises in both the Rent Control Petitions to third parties under a registered sale deed dated 01.01.2020. Therefore, the tenant had filed I.A.No.14 of 2022 and I.A.No.15 of 2022 under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C to reject the rent control petitions on the ground that the landlord has no locustandi to continue the eviction proceedings filed on the ground of wilful default after alienating the property to third parties.

5.The landlord has filed a counter contending that the judgments that are cited by the tenant are not applicable to the facts of this case. It was further contended that even though the landlords have alienated the properties to third parties, their right to conduct the case is never lost. It was further contended that the tenant has not paid arrears of rent either directly to the landlord or deposit the same before the Court. It was further contended that the application has been filed only with a malafide intention to stop the eviction proceedings.

6.The Rent Controller after considering the evidence on either side, has proceeded to dismiss the said applications relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2016 (3) CTC 211 (Sharadamma Vs. Mohammed Pyrejan (D) through L.Rs. and another) wherein it is held that the landlord after having alienated the said suit schedule properties to third party, will not lose his right to conduct the case. When the tenant has admitted the landlord tenant relationship, merely because the landlord has alienated the property to third party, the right of landlord to continue the rent control proceedings is not lost.

7.Based upon the above said observations, the Rent Controller had dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C in both the rent control petitions. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petitions have been filed.

(B)Contentions of the counsels appearing on either side:

8.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners had relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2011-4-LW-891 (Alaudin and another Vs. A.Sathar) and contended that the eviction proceedings on the ground of wilful default cannot be continued after the property has been sold. The landlord would not have locustandi to continue the proceedings for eviction on the ground of own use and occupation. He had further relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1997 (1) MLJ 420(S.V.Perasamy and Sons By its....Vs.R.Senthil Kumar and others) wherein this Court has held that the landlord is not entitled to continue the proceedings of eviction after he had alienated the properties. The petitioner has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in CRP(MD).No.428 and 757 of 2014 ( Veluthai Vs.E.K.K.Shaiddu Mohammed (died) and others) dated 21.12.2018 wherein this Court has held that once the landlord tenant relationship ceases, a petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default cannot be continued by erstwhile landlord.

9.Per contra, the respondent herein had relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2025 (1) CTC 499 (Uma Vs K.Purushothaman) wherein the learned Single Judge has held that the eviction proceedings initiated by the erstwhile land