Rajangam @ Jayaraman v. Amaresan2.Uthayakumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 23-7-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMC.R.P.NPD No.1122 of 2006andCMP No.8880 of 2006Rajangam @ Jayaraman.. Petitioner /Appellant/Tenent/REspondent vs1.Amaresan2.Uthayakumar.. Respondents /Respondents/Respondents/ Land owner Civil revision petition preferred under Sec.25 of the Tamil NaduBildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18/60 as amended by Act 23/73 andAct 1/80 against the judgment and decree passed by the PrincipalSubordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, made in RCA Suit No.8 of 2003 dated16.11.2004 confirming the order made in RCOP No.2/99 on the file of theRent Controller, Sirkali.For Petitioner: Mr.S.SountharFor Respondents: Mr.G.EthirajuluORDERChallenge is made to an order of the Rent Control AppellateAuthority, namely the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, made inRCA No.8/2003 preferred by the revision petitioner-tenant against theorder of eviction made by the Rent Controller, Sirkali, in RCOP No.2/99. 2.The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.3.The respondents herein filed a petition before the Rent Controller,Sirkali, in RCOP No.2/99 alleging that the petition mentioned premisesbearing door No.31(B) belonged to their mother Saraswathi Ammal by way ofpurchase under Ex.A1, the sale deed; that thereafter, she executed asettlement deed in their favour, and thus, they have become the owners andhave taken possession also; that the revision petitioner is the brother ofSaraswathi Ammal; that under the agreement of tenancy, he was put inpossession as a tenant; that originally, there was a rental of Rs.75/-;that the said rental was increased to Rs.100/-; that there was rentalarrears; that even Saraswathi Ammal issued an advocate's notice allegingthe entire facts; that it was replied with false and untenable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ allegations; that thereafter, the rent was due from 31.3.1998 till thetime of the filing of the petition, and under the circumstances, on thegrounds of willful default, demolition and reconstruction and also denialof title, eviction was to be ordered.4.The revision petitioner filed the counter inter alia stating thatthe property was purchased out of his money, but in the name of his sisterSaraswathi Ammal; that the alleged tenancy was false; that there was nolandlord-tenant relationship; that the alleged settlement deed was alsofalse; that there was no need for demolition and reconstruction; thatthere was no title at all; that the title was actually with thepetitioner, and hence, the petition was to be dismissed.5.The Rent Controller on enquiry, ordered eviction on the groundsmentioned therein. An appeal at the instance of the revision petitioner-tenant was also dismissed. Hence, this revision has arisen before thisCourt.6.In support of the revision petition, the learned Counsel wouldsubmit that there was no evidence at all to show that there was anylandlord-tenant relationship between the petitioners in the RCOP and therevision petitioner herein though he was called as a tenant by them; thatthere was no iota of evidence for payment of rental also; that in theabsence of any proof to that effect, the Rent Controller should havedismissed the petition, but granted the relief erroneously; that theappellate forum also did not look into the factual or legal position, butsustained the said order, and hence, it has got to be set aside.7.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the respondents on theabove contentions. 8.After doing so and looking into the materials available, this Courtis of the considered opinion that the revision does not carry any meritwhatsoever. The respondents herein who were the landlords, filed the RCOPon the grounds of willful default, denial of title and demolition andreconstruction in respect of the premises having Door No.31(B) asmentioned in the petition. The identity of the property was neverquestioned. The case of the respondents was that the property originallybelonged to Saraswathi Ammal by way of purchase, and by way of settlementdeed in their favour, they got title to the property, and they have becomethe owners. The revision petitioner not only denied the title ofSaraswathi Ammal, but also would claim that the property belonged to him.The sale deed in favour of Saraswathi Ammal and all tax receipts in herfavour were also marked. On the contrary, not even one scrap of paper wasavailable on the side of the revision petitioner. Thus, it was only afalse claim made and false evidence adduced by the revision petitionerbefore the lower authority. As far as the respondents who are the sons ofSaraswathi Ammal, are concerned, there was a settlement deed executed intheir favour, and thus, they claim that they have become the owners of theproperty. Apart from that, it is also a proved fact. Even the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Saraswathi Ammal has issued a notice through Counsel to the revisionpetitioner calling upon him to make the payment of rental at the rate ofRs.100/-, and from that period, he has defaulted in making the payment ofrental, and hence, he should vacate and hand over possession on the groundof willful default and also the property was required for demolition andreconstruction. This notice was replied by the petitioner denying hertitle, but would also further add that the property was purchased out ofhis money, and hence, Saraswathi Ammal should have executed a registeredsettlement deed in his favour. All would go to show that even at the timeof the reply notice, it was a false defence that started. 9.Apart from the above, the revision petitioner before this Court isnone else than the own brother of Saraswathi Ammal. In suchcircumstances, there was no reason for the lady to give such a notice toher own brother calling him as a tenant and making a demand to vacate thepremises for non-payment of rental. The learned Counsel for thepetitioner would submit that once such a plea was put forth, a duty wascast upon the respondents to examine Saraswathi Ammal. But, it shouldhave been other way about. Once there is evidence to show that SaraswathiAmmal was the owner of the property, and she has only issued the notice tothe revision petitioner to vacate the premises on the ground of willfuldefault, then a duty was cast upon the revision petitioner to examine heras a witness to speak contra to that. All the circumstances stood againstthe petitioner, and hence, both the authorities below have passed an orderof eviction, which, in the opinion of this Court, has got to be sustained.Accordingly, it is sustained. Taking into consideration that thepetitioner is occupying the premises for residential purpose, this Courtfeels that it is a fit case where a reasonable time could be granted.Accordingly, six months' time is granted for vacating and handing overpossession. An affidavit of undertaking should be filed within a periodof two weeks herefrom. 10.In the result, this civil revision petition is, accordingly,dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed.nsv/Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:1.The Principal Subordinate Judge Mayiladuthurai2.The Rent Controller Sirkali3. The Section officer, VR Section, High Court, Chennai.+ One cc to Mr. S. Sounthar, Advocate sR 42584+ One cc to Mr. G. Ethirajulu, Advocate sR 45118BV (co)sg 14/8/07CRP NPD No.1122 of 2006Dt: 23-7-2007