Advocates:
['M/S PERUMBULAVIL RADHAKRISHNAN', '', 'M K JAMUNA', 'S N PANIKAR', 'M/S K V BABU', '', 'R- TAJUNNISA', 'R- MR SYED BASHEER', 'V AYYAPPA RAJA', 'M/S R BHARATH KUMAR', 'R PRIYANKA']

CRP.No.3689 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 05.07.2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 14.10.2022

C O R A M :

The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice J. NISHA BANU

Civil Revision Petition No.3689 of 2013

Zulaika Bee (since deceased)

1.Syed Ahmed

2.Khamarunnissa

3.Syed Ghouse Basha

4,Shakila Begam

5.Shamshed Begam

6.Syed Saleem Basha

...Petitioners

/respondents 2 to 6 and 10

Vs

1.Vijaya Timbers,

Rep. By its Partner

Mr.V.Venkateswara Rao

….1^st respondent/appellant

2.Syed Basheer

3.Tajunnisa

1/9

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

CRP.No.3689 of 2013

4.Naseemunnissa

...Legal representatives of

sole petitioner/respondents 7 – 9

/respondents 2 to 4

5.Aftab Begam

….Newly added party in RCA

Respondent-11

/5^th respondent.

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamilnadu

Building (Leasing and Rent Control) Act, as against the fair and decreetal

order dated 08.03.2013 in RCA.1104/2002 on the file of VIII Court of

Small Causes, Chennai, reversing the fair and decreetal order passed by

XII Small Causes Judge, Chennai in RCOP.No.1194 of 1998 dated

24.09.2002.

For Petitioners :: Mr.Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan

For respondents :: Mr.K.V.Babu for R1

Mr.R.Bharath Kumar for R4 and R5

R2 and R3 – No appearance

O R D E R

This civil revision petition is filed as against the fair and decreetal

order dated 08.03.2013 in RCA.No.1104 of 2002 on the file of VIII Small

causes court, Chennai, reversing the order passed in RCOP.No.1194 of 1998

dated 24.09.2002.

2/9

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

CRP.No.3689 of 2013

2. The grievance of the revision petitioners herein is that the

appellate authority ought to have fixed fair rent for the petition premises. The

findings of the appellate authority that co-owner doctrine does not exist on the

ground that Ex.P.4 partition deed was acted upon and the schedule mentioned

property is not allotted to the petitioners is erroneous.

3. According to the revision petitioners, they are entitled for

allocation of share in the petition premises.

4. The facts necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition is

that RCOP is filed by one Zulaikha Bee/Landlady who was represented by one

Akbar Sheriff and sought for fixing fair rent for the premises which was rented

to Vijaya Timbers/respondent/tenant.

5. In the counter filed by the tenant, they denied the relationship of

landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent.

3/9

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

CRP.No.3689 of 2013

6. The RCOP court found that the landlord is the co-owner of the

property and suit for partition is pending and further the landlord is represented

by the power agent who is authorised to collect rent and so fixed the fair rent

and directed the tenant to pay the fair rent fixed by the Rent controller.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant filed RCA.No.1104 of

2002 taking the ground that the Power Agent is not capable of filing the Rent

Control Petition and the property mentioned in the Power of Attorney and the

petition premises are different. Further, according to the tenant the petitioner in

RCOP did not mention any devolution of title in respect of the petition

premises.

8. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, found that as per oral and

documentary evidence, the petition premises was not allotted to the Petitioner

in RCOP viz., Zulaikha Bee. It is further pointed out that Ex.P.4 Partition Deed

is acted upon and as per the evidence of P.W.2, there is no question of

undivided share and co-owner doctrines. The oral evidence of P.W.2 also

reflected that the property has not been allocated to Zulaikha Bee and one Jalal

has been receiving rent from the tenant, therefore, landlord definition is not

4/9

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

CRP.No.3689 of 2013

applicable to the respondent/tenant.

9. On the above said findings, the appellate authority answered the