IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09/03/2006
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
CRP.(NPD) No.44 of 2006
and
C.M.P.No.303 of 2006
E.Sundarrajan .... Petitioner Vs.
-Vs-
B.Kanchanamala ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Judgment
and decree of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai on
17.09.2005 in R.C.A.No.951 of 2002 which was preferred against the Judgment
and decree passed by the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes Court, Chennai
on 01.11.2002 in RCOP.No.596 of 1991.
!For petitioner : Ms. R.Shyamala
^For respondent: Mr. Rajendrakumar
:O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Judgment and
degree of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai on 1 7.09.2005
in R.C.A.No.951 of 2002 which was preferred against the Judgment and decree
passed by the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes Court, Chennai on
01.11.2002 in RCOP.No.596 of 1991.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
respondent.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is running a business at
No.63, R.K.Mutt Road, Chennai, for more than 12 years and he has been paying a
monthly rent of Rs.80/- to the respondent without obtaining any receipt for
the said payment . It is his case that he and one Mr.V.Devaraj were
tenants of the erstwhile owner of the property in question. He states that
due to the illness of Mr.V.Devaraj, the petitioner has been running the shop
in the premises which is the subject matter of the dispute. He also states
that the respondent, who is the subsequent purchaser of the petition property
knew about his occupation of the premises and that he was running the business
in that premises . The petitioner also states that he had filed a Civil Suit
OS.No.6058 of 2001 pending before the XIV Assistant Judge City Civil Court,
Chennai. He further states that the RCOP.No.596 of 1991 and EP. No.279
of 1999 filed by the respondent were decided exparte and no chance had been
given to the petitioner in those proceedings. He claims that he can be
evicted from the petition premises by the respondent only by following the due
process of law. Further, the petitioner states that he had taken steps to
deposit the rent in the court in RCOP.No.69 of 2002 before XI Judge, Court of
Small Causes, Chennai, which was disposed of on 30.12.2002 and the petitioner
had preferred an appeal under RCA.SR.No.23021 of 2005 with an application to
condone the delay in filing the appeal.
4. The petitioner also states that huge investment has been made
for putting up the super-structure in the petition premises and he has been
paying property tax and the electricity card stands in his name. He also
states that he has been issued with a certificate by the Commercial
Department, to run the business in the respondent’s premises.
5. On the contrary, it is the case of the respondent who has
filed a counter affidavit, that she had originally filed RCOP.No.596 of 1991
for eviction on the ground of wilful default and also on other grounds as
against one Mr.V.Devaraj and she further states that eventhough Mr.Devaraj had
filed a counter , he did not contest the proceedings and an exparte order was
passed against him, in the above said RCOP. When she had filed an execution
petition to execute the decree, the said Mr.Devaraj took steps to set aside
the decree passed against him and after enquiry the learned Rent Controller
was pleased to dismiss the same. Challenging the said order, Mr.Devaraj had
filed an appeal in RCA.No.509 of 2000 before the VIII Judge, Small Causes
Court, Chennai. After hearing the arguments adduced on behalf of the parties,
the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal confirming the order
passed by the Rent Controller.
6. It is also the case of the respondent that Mr.Devaraj had
filed his counter in the Execution Proceedings and after enquiry the learned X
Judge Small Causes Court, Chennai was pleased to order delivery of possession.
It is also stated by the respondent that when she had gone to execute the
warrant of delivery along with the Amin, the present revision petitioner
obstructed the delivery and the Bailiff noted the obstruction and so she had
to file M.P.No.582 of 2001 in the said execution proceedings to remove the
obstruction that has been caused by the present revision petitioner.
7. It is also stated by the respondent that the Rent controller
was pleased to allow the petition filed by the respondent for removal of
obstruction, against which the petitioner herein had filed RCA.No.951 of 2002
before the appellate Court which was also rightly dismissed on merits
confirming the order of the Rent Controller against which the present revision
petition has been filed.
8. The respondent also states that pending execution proceedings
the revision petitioner herein filed a petition under section 8 (5) of the
Tamil Nadu Buildings ( Lease and Rent Control) Act 18/1960 as amended by Act
23/1973, ( herein after referred to as the “Act”) for direction to deposit
rent alleging that the respondent had refused to accept the rent. After
counter was filed by the respondent and after elaborate enquiry, the petition
was dismissed holding that the petitioner is not a tenant under this
respondent. The said order has become final and no appeal has been filed till
date. It is also the case of the respondent that the petitioner in the Civil
Revision petition is neither a tenant under the respondent nor he is occupying
the premises on his own. The petitioner has filed a Civil Suit OS.No.6058 of
2001 before the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for a
declaration to declare his status as a tenant and the present stage of the
said suit is not known to the respondent. The respondent further states that
the petitioner is a trespasser and is squatting on her property and thereby
obstructing her from executing the lawful decree, which has been passed by the
court below and affirmed by the appellate Court.
9. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Appellate
Authority, Chennai dated 17.09.2005 in R.C.A.No.951 of 2002, it is found that
R.C.O.P.No.596 of 1991 had been filed by the respondent/ landlady against the
tenant one Mr.Devaraj under sections 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (a) (iii) of the
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It is further seen
that the Rent Controller after enquiry had allowed the RCOP and ordered
eviction of the t enant. The landlady, who is the respondent in the present
Civil Revision Petition, had filed E.P.No.279 of 1999 for delivery of vacant
possession of the petition premises. While executing, the delivery warrant,
the present petitioner had obstructed the delivery of possession and hence the
landlady/respondent had filed M.P.No.582 of 2001 under Order 21 Rule 97 and
101 of the Code of Civil Procedure to remove the obstructor and effect the
warrant of delivery of possession in E.P.No.279 of 1999. The said petition
was resisted by the petitioner herein. After hearing both the parties, the
learned Rent Controller had allowed the application against which the
obstructor in the Rent Control Petition, the present petitioner had filed
M.P.No.829 of 2005 to receive additional documents on his side
which was allowed and the documents were marked in favour of the petitioner.
10. The case of the petitioner in the appeal was that the original
tenant Mr.V.Devaraj had let out the petition premises in the year 19 90 and
thereafter, the petitioner was recognised and attorned the tenancy in favour
of the respondent/landlady and only on the instruction of the respondent /
landlady the petitioner had carried out repairs to the premises by incurring
huge expenditure. The appellant had filed documents relating the Property
tax, Electricity deposit receipt and Consumption charges card and receipt for
other incidental expenses for development of the property. He had further
submitted that having been recognised by the respondent as her tenant in the
petition premises and having permitted the tenant to put up the superstructure
and having allowed to pay taxes for the building, now the respondent /
landlady, in collusion with the erstwhile tenant, had obtained a false decree
and sought for execution of the decree against the lawful tenant, who is the
petitioner herein.
11. The Appellate Authority has found that the documents filed by
petitioner are not relevant to establish the jural relationship or privity of
contract between the landlord and the tenant to prove that the petitioner was
the tenant. Further, it was held that there was no documentary evidence such
as lease agreement, or rental receipts or letter of permission to carry out
repairs to prove himself as a tenant, of the premises under the respondent.
Further, no document, has been produced by the petitioner regarding attornment
of the tenancy by the respondent nor for payment of rent. He has also found
that the original tenant Mr.Devaraj contested in the R.C.O.P. Since his
defence was rejected, he had initiated RCA which was also dismissed.
Therefore, he had initiated the present revision petition to cause obstruction
for delivery of possession of the petition premises to the respondent. It was
also found by the Appellate Authority that the R.C.O.P. No. 69 of 2002,
filed by the petitioner herein under Section 8 (5) of the the ‘Act’ for
deposit of rent for the petition premises in the court was dismissed on the
finding that there was no jural relationship of landlady and tenant between
the petitioner and the respondent herein. Against the said order, no appeal
had been preferred and therefore, the petitioner had not filed any proof to
prove his theory of tenancy as well as his assertion that he is in lawful
possession of the petition premises. On that basis, it was held that the
petitioner was rightly considered as an obstructor and therefore, the removal
of obstruction order was passed.
12. Based on the above reasonings, the Appellate Authority had
confirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 01.11.2002, passed in
MP.No.582 of 2001 in EP.No.279 of 1999 in RCOP.No.596 of 1991.
13. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on analysing
the rival contentions and on perusing the documents filed, it is clear that
the petitioner has neither established his status as a tenant under the
respondent nor the attornment of the tenancy by the respondent to substantiate
his claims. Therefore, this court finds that there is no illegality or
infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Authority in RCA.No.951 of
2002, dated 17.09.2005,. Therefore, as this court does not find any reason to
interfere with the said order, the Civil Revision petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
To
The VII Judge,
Small Causes Court,
Chennai.