Legal heirs of a deceased tenant retain obligations under tenant laws, despite contesting the tenancy relationship; fair rent can be fixed for the property regardless of tenant status.

ORDER :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

The tenant who suffered an order of fixation of fair rent before the Rent Controller which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner.

2. The RCOP No.925 of 2013 was filed before XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai by the respondents as against the revision petitioner and his brother, Mr.J.Baskar under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 18/60, as amended by Act -23 of 1973 (in short 'Act').

3. The case of the respondents/landlords was that the petitioner and his brother are not paying rent consumerate the market rents in the locality and therefore, fair rent had to be fixed for the respondents/landlords' building. Before the Rent Controller, an Engineer was examined on the side of the respondents landlord as P.W.1 and Exhibits P1 to P4 were marked. Neither the petitioner nor his brother chose to cross examine P.W.1 and based upon the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.1,37,238/- per month. The brother of the petitioner did not choose to challenge the order of the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent. However, the revision petitioner herein preferred RCA. No.536 of 2017 before the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. The Appellate Authority confirmed the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller as against which the present revision has been preferred.

4. I have heard Mr.E.Prabu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.K.P.Ashok, learned counsel for the respondents/landlords.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant would submit that even in the counter affidavit filed before the Rent Controller, the revision petitioner had taken a specific plea denying the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and in such circumstances, the respondents/landlords ought to have entered the witness box and established existence of landlord-tenant relationship between themselves and the revision petitioner and his brother, one J.Baskar. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Prabu, would therefore submit that the Courts ought to have drawn adverse inference against the respondents and dismissed the RCOP instead of proceeding to fix fair rent.

6. The learned counsel would further submit that when existence of landlord-tenant relationship was the foundation for the applicability of the Rent Control Act, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have miserably failed to apply their minds to the defence raised by the revision petitioner and erroneously fixed fair rent for the premises.

7. He would further state that there is absolutely no evidence on the side of the respondents/landlords to establish that the revision petitioner was associated with the business of the father late B.Jayaraj who alone was the tenant under the respondents/landlords. In this connection, he would invite my attention to the definition of the tenant under Section2(8) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

Section 2 (8) in The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960

(8)[ "tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and includes the surviving spouse, or any son, or daughter, or the legal representative of a deceased tenant who-] [Substituted by section 3(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Amendments Act, 1973 (Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1973).]

(i)in the case of residential building, h