C.R.P.(MD).No.2690 of 2018

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 01.11.2023

Delivered on: 10.11.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

C.R.P.(MD)No.2690 of 2018

and

C.M.P.(MD)No.11807 of 2018

1.J.Packiam

2.J.Udayakumar

... Petitioners/Respondents 2 &3

Vs.

1.P.Raje

2.Minor.Naveen Raja

... Respondents 1&2 / Petitioners

3.R.Mahendran

... 3^rd Respondent /1^st Respondent

Prayer:-Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India, to strike off the R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2018, pending on the file of the

Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Theni.

For Petitioners

:

Mr.H.Arumugam

For Respondents

:

Ms.N.Vinitha

for Veera Associates for R1 & 2

:

No appearance for R3

1/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD).No.2690 of 2018

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is at the instance of the second and

third respondents in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2018, on the file of the Rent

Controller (District Munsif Court), Theni, praying to strike off

R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2018 on the grounds that the first and second respondents

herein who filed the eviction petition, were not landlords and they are not

entitled to claim rents or seek eviction on the ground of non-payment of

rents, alleging wilful default committed by the tenant.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as

well as the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, viz., the

petitioners in the R.C.O.P proceedings.

3. The case of the respondents 1 and 2 before the Rent Controller

is that the petition premises originally belonged to Late M.Jeyaram, who is

the father-in-law of the first respondent and grandfather of the second

respondent. The said Jeyaram died on 14.08.2017 leaving behind the

respondents 2 and 3, viz., revision petitioners herein, besides themselves,

2/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD).No.2690 of 2018

who were wife and son of the pre-deceased son Poongundran. According

to the respondents 1 and 2, the said Jeyaram died intestate and they were

entitled to 1/3^rd share in the property and consequently, 1/3^rd share in the

rents that were due and payable by the tenant, namely, the first respondent

in the R.C.O.P., who has been cited as third respondent in the Civil

Revision Petition. It is further stated in the eviction petition that the

respondents 1 and 2 sent a notice to the tenant calling upon him to pay

Rs.7,333/- per month towards their share of the rent and that the tenant had

sent an undated reply stating that he was not in any default and that he is

paying the rent to the second respondent, viz,. first revision petitioner

herein and further contended that he had paid Rs.8,00,000/- to Late

Jeyaram and therefore, he was not liable to pay anything to the

respondents 1 and 2. The revision petitioners were impleaded as

respondents 2 and 3 in the R.C.O.P proceedings and it has been

specifically stated in the R.C.O.P that the respondents 2 and 3 had brought

about some agreement and arrived at an understanding with the tenant and

the same would not bind the respondents 1 and 2. The revision petitioners

have filed a counter in the said R.C.O.P stating that no doubt, the said

M.Jeyaram was the owner of the property. However, during his life time,

3/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.(MD).No.2690 of 2018

he had executed a Will on 13.08.2017, bequeathing the petition premises

to the third respondent, viz., second revision petitioner herein and that

even during the life time of his father, it was only the second revision

petitioner, who was collecting rents and that he has also filed O.P.No.2 of

2017 for probating the said Will of his father. He has also stated that the

respondents 1 and 2 have filed a suit for partition in which suit also, the

petition premises has been included as one of the items available for

partition and therefore,