ORDER
S. Ashok Kumar, J.
1. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree delivered in R.C.A. No. 891 of 2005 by the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai dated 2.1.2006 against the order dated 24.6.2005 passed in in M.P. No. 396 of 2005 in R.C.O.P. No. 20 of 2005 on the file of the XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, and the judgment and decree delivered in R.C.A. No. 94 of 2005 by the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai dated 9.9.2005 against the order dated 22.7.2004 passed in M.P. No. 148 of 2004 in R.C.O.P. No. 1761 of 2003 on the file of the XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, these civil revisions are filed.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner is a tenant and the respondent is landlord. The respondent filed R.C.O.P. No. 20 of 2005 and R.C.O.P. No. 1761 of 2003 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Rent Control Act. During pendency of the rent control proceedings the petitioner filed M.P. No. 396 of 2005 in R.C.O.P. No. 20 of 2005 to decide the issue of maintainability of the RCOP as preliminary issue and during enquiry in M.P. No. 90 of 2004 he has also filed M.P. No. 148 of 2004 in R.C.O.P. No. 1761 of 2003 to decide the issue of maintainability of the RCOP as preliminary issue.
3. Before the Rent Controller during enquiry in the said miscellaneous petitions the respondent has marked Ex.R.2 to R7 as documents, but no document was marked on the side of the petitioner.
4. After elaborate enquiry, the learned Rent Controller has dismissed the miscellaneous petitions. Aggrieved over the said impugned orders the petitioner has preferred rent control appeals in R.C.A. Nos. 891 of 2005 and R.C.A. No. 94 of 2005.
5. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the rent control appeals filed by the petitioner.
6. Aggrieved over the same these civil revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that Section 10(8) of the Act clearly indicates that no person who is receiving the rent of a building merely as an agent of the landlord shall, except with the previous written consent of the landlord be entitled to apply for eviction of a tenant; that the payment of the rent made by the petitioner to the “Estate of Janakiah Chetty” alone will not confer the right on the respondent to file eviction petition; that on the demise of R.K. Janakiah Chetty, the property devolved on all the legal heirs of R.K. Janakiah Chetty, hence the eviction petition should have been filed by all the legal heirs or an administrator duly appointed by a competent court to administer the alleged estate of R.K. Janakiah Chetty by way of letters of administration or probate issued by competent court to enable the respondent to file the eviction petition in such capacity; that in the absence of proper presentation of the eviction petition by a person having suitable authority and capacity, the Rent Controller cannot go into the issues set out in the eviction petition without going into the initial question of the maintainability; that as the respondent had obtained a separate income tax “PAN NUMBER” in the name of the estate of R.K. Janakiah Chetty the petition as framed and filed by the respondent is not maintainable; that the respondent has no legal entity in law or a person as defined in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to file the eviction proceedings; and that the petitioner has been paying the rents in respect of the petition premises to the respondent, the same will not empower the respondent to file the eviction proceedings.
8. The Respondent herein has filed the RCOP.20 of 2005 and R.C.O.P. No. 1761 of 2003 before the Rent Controller, seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default. The petitioner contested the cases by filing counter. During the pendency of the RCOP, the petitioner filed M.P.396 of 2005 and M.P. No. 148 of 2004 to decide the issue of maintainability of the rent control original petition.
9. The petition property originally belonged to one Janakiah Chetty and after his demise the property developed upon all the legal heirs, but one of the sons Mr. Jayachandran has filed the RCOP in the name of Estate of R.K. Janakiah Chett. After the death of Janakiah Chetty the property belonged to him are managed by his eldest son R.J. Jayachandran under the name and style of Estate of R.K. Janakiah Chetty. The properties are not divided among the legal heirs and the Estate is now managed by the eldest son. The petitioner has paid the rent in the name of Estate of R.K. Janakiah Chetti.
10. The rented premises originally belonged to R.K. Janakiah Chetty and he died in the year 1997. After the demise of R.K. Janakiah Chetty to manage the properties belonged to him, the Estate of R.K. Janakiah Chetty was formed and the same is maintained by his eldest son R.J. Jayachandran. The properties of the deceased Janakiah Chetty has not been divided among the legal heirs. only for the purpose of managing the properties the Estate is in the name of the deceased erstwhile landlord and a separate PAN Number has also been assigned in the name of the Estate. The The eldest son of the deceased Janakiah Chetty is managing the Estate, who has filed the RCOP representing the Estate.
11. The main objection for maintainability of the rent control original petitions is that all the legal heirs of Janakiah Chetty have not been arrayed as petitioners. Further the R.J. Jayachandran who has filed the RCOP has no right to maintain the petition in the name of the Estate without Succession Certificate or court order.
12. The Estate in the name of Janakiah Chetty is formed only for the purpose of managing the properties. This is an arrangement made among the legal heirs till the properties are divided by meets and bounds. As the eldest son of the deceased Janakiah Chetty and the Manager of the Estate R.J. Jayachandran has filed RCOP. All the legal heirs of the deceased Janakiah Chetty are not necessarily to be impleaded as landlords.
13. The petitioner has already paid rent to the Estate of the deceased Janakiah Chetty and obtained receipt thereby he has acknowledged the existence and the functioning of the Estate. Exs.R1 and R2 would clearly establish that the rent for the premises has been received by R.J. Jayachandran on behalf of the respondent’s Estate.
14. As per Section 2(6) of the Rent Control Act, landlord is defined as follows:
includes the person who is receiving or entitled to receive the rent of a building. Whether on his own account or on behalf of another.
15. As contemplated under Section 2(6) R.J. Jayachandran the eldest son cum Manager of the Estate of the deceased Janakiah Chetty is a person entitled to file the RCOP. So the RCOP filed in the name of the Estate of deceased erstwhile landlord represented by his eldest son is perfectly valid in the eye of law and maintainable. There is no irregularity or illegality in maintaining the RCOP.
16. As per the Act a landlord is a person one who is entitled to collect the rent and there is no dispute among the legal heirs and all the landlords are not necessarily to be the party in the rent control petitions. The miscellaneous petitions filed for maintainability are only to protract the proceedings. Exs.R1 and R2 rent receipt were in the name of respondent and it is clear that the petitioner is a tenant and the respondent is landlord to the petition premises. The rent control original petitions have been filed to evict the petitioners on the ground of wilful default and there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the petition premises.
17. Therefore I do not find any defect in the orders of the learned Rent Controller Appellate Authority. These civil revision petitions are dismissed with cost of Rs. 2000/-. Consequently the connected C.M.P. No. 209 of 2006 and M.P. No. 1 of 2006 are also dismissed. The petitioner is directed to deposit the cost amount in the credit of the Honourable Chief Justice Relief Fund, High Court, Madras within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The registry is directed to post the case after four weeks for reporting compliance.
18. The respondent in C.R.P. No. 18 of 2006 is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs. 75,000/- which has been deposited as per the order of this Honourable Court dated 6.2.2006 made in C.M.P. No. 209 of 2006, in the credit of the R.C.O.P. No. 1761 of 2003 on the file of the XI Judge, Small Causes (Rent Controller) Chennai. With this observation C.M.P. No. 10162 of 2006 is closed.