IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18/06/2005
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
C.R.P.(NPD) No.1018 of 2005
and
C.M.P.No.7670 of 2005
1.V.Dhanam
2.R.Saraswathi
3.Punidavathy .. Petitioners
-Vs-
P.Sudhakaran .. Respondent
This civil revision petition is filed under Sec.25 of the Pondicherry
Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, against the judgment and decree
dated 22.7.2003 and made in R.C.A.No.41 of 2002 on the file of the Principal
District Judge, Pondicherry, confirming the order dated 3.12.2001 and made in
HRCOP No.68 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry.
!For Petitioners : M/s.Sudha Ramalingam
^For Respondents : ---
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been brought forth challenging the
judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, made in
R.C.A.No.41 of 2002 wherein the order of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry, in
HRCOP No.68 of 2000, was affirmed by passing an order of eviction of the
petitioners herein.
2. The landlord respondent came with an application for eviction of
the petitioners herein, the tenants, under Sec.10(2)(i) and 10(vii) of the
Pondicherry Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act on the grounds of wilful
default and denial of title. The case of the landlord before the lower Court
was that the property originally belonged to the petitioners/tenants; that
they sold the same by way of a sale deed dated 3.6.1999 for a consideration of
Rs.2,50,000/-; that the said payment was made; but, they could not hand over
possession; that they wanted a short accommodation by 10 days; that even then,
they could not vacate the property; that they also executed a lease deed
agreeing to be in possession for a period of 11 months and hand over
possession; that despite the expiry of 11 months, they did not hand over
possession; that a notice was issued calling upon them to vacate the premises;
that they sent a reply containing false allegations as to the title to the
property and denying the landlord and tenant relationship, and under the
circumstances, the RCOP came to be filed by the respondent on the grounds
stated above.
3. The application was contested vehemently by the petitioners/
tenants on the ground that there was no sale at all; that it was only a
mortgage; that their signatures were obtained in the stamp papers; that it was
not their intention to sell the property; that apart from that, no
consideration was paid for the alleged sale transaction; that even the
contention of the landlord that Rs.10,000/- was paid by way of advance at the
time of execution of the lease deed is thoroughly false; that there was no
lease deed between the parties; that neither the landlord had title to the
property, nor there was any landlord and tenant relationship between the
parties, and under the circumstances, the application was to be dismissed.
4. On consideration of the submissions made and perusal of the
materials, the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction, which was
challenged by the petitioners/tenants before the appellate forum. The appeal
also met the same fate. In such circumstances, they have brought forth this
revision before this Court.
5. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners
and also made a thorough scrutiny of the entire materials. After hearing the
learned Counsel and scrutiny of the materials, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the revision does not even require an admission before this
Court.
6. The respondent sought eviction of the petitioners from the
premises on two grounds, namely wilful default and denial of title. The case
of the landlord in short as stated above, was that he purchased the property
from the tenants by way of a sale deed on 3.6.1999 under Ex.A-1, pursuant to
which possession was not handed over, and the tenants also sought for 10 days
time; but, they did not hand over, and there was a lease deed executed by them
under Ex.A2, pursuant to which they were put in possession, and they did not
hand over possession, despite the period of 11 months under the lease deed was
over, and then, a notice was issued, which resulted in a reply with false
allegations. Both sides adduced evidence. Both the Rent Controller and the
appellate forum have perused the evidence. At this juncture, it has to be
pointed out that it is true that the property originally belonged to the
petitioners/tenants; but, a sale deed came to be executed by them in favour of
the landlord on 3.6.1999. The sale consideration was found to be
Rs.2,50,000/-, and as per the recitals, the same was received by the tenants.
7. So far as the sale deed was concerned, the petitioners/tenants
have taken three stands. Firstly, it was not a sale deed; but, it was a
mortgage deed. Secondly, their signatures were obtained in the stamp papers.
Thirdly, the consideration was not passed. It remains to be stated that the
recitals are found contra. So far as the documentary evidence is concerned,
the Court has to necessarily accept the averments found in the sale deed and
not the oral testimony of the petitioners/tenants before the Court below,
which stood contra, unless and until the circumstances warrant so. Not only
the sale deed was relied upon by the Rent Controller and the appellate forum,
but also the lease deed executed by the tenants. Further, it is contended by
the petitioners’ side that no lease deed was also executed, which is falsified
by the existence of Ex.A2 lease deed. This lease deed executed by the tenants
would clearly speak about the property in question, and the lease period was
only for 11 months, where they agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-.
Under the circumstances, the Rent Controller as well as the appellate forum
have not only relied on the oral testimony, but also relied upon the documents
which were also registered. Thus, it is suffice to hold that the property
originally belonging to the petitioners, were sold to the respondent landlord
by a sale deed under Ex.A1 on 3.6.1999, and subsequently, a lease deed has
also been executed by the tenants under Ex.A2, and they have been in
possession. There was a clear denial of title, shown by the landlord, and the
same was well within the knowledge of the petitioners/ tenants. In such
circumstances, the Rent Controller and the appellate forum were perfectly
correct in passing an order of eviction of the petitioners herein from the
tenancy premises. Hence, the finding of the lower appellate forum does not
require any interference, and accordingly, it is sustained.
8. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioners/
tenants are aged, and therefore, it has got to be considered. In order to
avoid the avoidable delay, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is
a fit and proper case where six months time has to be given to the tenants to
vacate from the premises. Accordingly, six months time is granted, and if not
done, the respondent is always at liberty to take eviction proceedings before
the lower forum to get the possession of the property.
9. With the above observations, this civil revision petition is
dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. Consequently, connected
CMP is closed.
Index: yes
Internet: yes
To:
1.The Principal District Judge, Pondicherry.
2.The Rent Controller, Pondicherry.
nsv/