High Court · 2024

C.R.P.No.2122 of 2020IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11.03.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARC.R.P. No.2122 of 2020Regina D/o. David ... Petitionervs.Gita Ravi (Deceased)1. Ravi S/o. Parasuram Gulob Singh2. Supriya D/o. Ravi Parasuram3. Deepa D/o. Ravi Parasuram4. Sushma D/o. Ravi Parasuram... RespondentsPrayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act No.1 of 1980) praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 31.07.2018 passed in R.C.A No.498 of 2008 on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority) at Chennai confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 21.09.2007 passed in R.C.O.P. No.1765 of 2006 on the file of the learned X Judge, Small Causes Court (Rent Controller) Chennai.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2122 of 2020For Petitioner : Mr. S. Subbiah, Senior Counselfor Mr. W.M. Abdul Majeed For Respondents : Mr. S. ParthasarathyO R D E R The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Court below fixing fair rent for the petition mentioned premises.2. The respondents herein filed a Rent Control petition for fixation of fair rent. The learned Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs.13,473/- and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in R.C.A No.498 of 2008 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chennai. The Appellate Authority agreed with the findings of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that jural relationship of the landlord and the tenant is specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner in the main petition for fixation of fair rent and 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2122 of 2020the respondents failed to lead any evidence with regard to the tenancy. Even though the respondents failed to lead any evidence to prove the existence of landlord and tenant relationship, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have erroneously assumed existence of landlord and tenant relationship and proceeded to fix fair rent.4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was examined as RW1 and in her evidence she had clearly admitted the ownership of the respondents / landlord over the demised premises and in the absence of any plausible explanation on the side of the petitioner to prove her character of possession, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner was the tenant under the respondents and proceeded to fix the fair rent.5. The respondents herein filed a petition for fixation of fair rent treating the petitioner as a tenant. The petitioner filed a counter affidavit denying the landlord – tenant relationship between the parties. When jural relationship between the parties as landlord-tenant is specifically denied in the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2122 of 2020counter affidavit filed by the petitioner. It is the duty of the respondents to prove the same by leading evidence. For the reasons best known to the respondents, they have not entered the witness box and proved the alleged landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents. On behalf of the respondents, only the Engineer was examined as PW1. He only deposed about the value of the building and fair rent to be fixed for the building. Therefore the evidence of PW1 Engineer is not at all useful to prove the jural relationship. In the absence of any evidence available on record to prove the jural relationship, the Rent Controller relied on the evidence of RW1 to come to the conclusion that she admitted the jural relationship. The relevant portion of the evidence of the petitioner as RW1 reads as follows:-“bkhj;jk; 135 gpshl;Lfspy; kDr; brhj;Jk; xU gpshl;L me;j 135 gpshl;Lk; kDjhuu; fPjhutp bgaupy; fl;olk; fl;Ltjw;F mDkjp th';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ epiwa gpshl;Lfs; fPjh utp neuhfr; brd;W fpuak; gjpt[ bra;J bfhLj;jpUf;fpwhu;/ kDr;brhj;jpw;F ,Jtiu fPjhutp fpiuag; gj;jpuk; vGjpf; bfhLf;ftpy;iy/ thlif bfhLf;fhky; ,Ug;gjw;fhf ehd; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; bgha; rhl;rp mspf;fpnwd; vd;why; rupay;y”6. The reading of the above evidence of the petitioner as RW1 would indicate that she had admitted the petition mentioned premises was located in 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2122 of 2020a flat complex and originally the deceased respondent Gita Ravi had executed several sale deeds in respect of other flats. If at all, the said statement made by the petitioner would amount to admission of respondents' right over the property, but however she had not made any admission regarding the tenancy between the petitioner and the respondents.7. The learned Rent Controller observed that the petitioner herein failed to prove her right or title over the petition mentioned property. In the absence of any evidence to show her right, her possession shall be treated as that of tenancy. The said finding reached by the Rent Controller was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Therefore, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the petitioner is the tenant under the respondents only on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove the character of her possession. The respondent Gita Ravi filed a Rent Control Original Petition for fixation of fair rent on the ground that the petitioner is a tenant under her. Therefore it is a bounden duty of the respondents to prove the landlord-tenancy relationship. As mentioned earlier, the respondents failed to lead any evidence to prove the landlord – tenancy relationship. Merely because the 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2122 of 2020petitioner failed to convince the Court under what authority she had been occupying the building, her possession cannot be treated as that of tenant. The petitioner may be a purchaser or a permissive occupier or even a trespasser. The owner of a building will not become landlord within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, unless he proves existence of jural relationship. The respondents failed to lead any evidence to show there is a tenancy agreement between them and petitioner and hence they are entitled to receive rent from petitioner. Therefore, the finding reached by the Courts below that the petitioner is a tenant under the respondents is the finding based on no evidence and as a result, the same is liable to be set aside as perverse. 8. In the result, when the landlord – tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents is not established, the original petition filed by the respondents for fixation of fair rent is not at all maintainable. The Courts below ought not to have proceeded to fix the fair rent, when the petition itself is not maintainable.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2122 of 20209. Accordingly this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 31.07.2018 passed in R.C.A No.498 of 2008 on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority) at Chennai confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 21.09.2007 passed in R.C.O.P. No.1765 of 2006 on the file of the learned X Judge, Small Causes Court (Rent Controller) Chennai. No costs. 11.03.2024Index: Yes / NoSpeaking order: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NomjsTo1. The VIII Judge, Small Causes Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority),Chennai.2. The X Judge, Small Causes Court (Rent Controller),Chennai.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2122 of 2020S.SOUNTHAR, J.mjsC.R.P.No.2122 of 202011.03.20248/8

C.R.P.No.2122 of 2020IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11.03.2024CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHARC.R.P. No.2122 of 2020Regina D/o. David ... Petitionervs.Gita Ravi (Deceased)1. Ravi S/o. Parasuram Gulob Singh2. Supriya D/o. Ravi Parasuram3. Deepa D/o. Ravi Parasuram4. Sushma D/o. Ravi Parasuram... RespondentsPrayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act No.1 of 1980) praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 31.07.2018 passed in R.C.A No.498 of 2008 on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority) at Chennai confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 21.09.2007 passed in R.C.O.P. No.1765 of 2006 on the file of the learned X Judge, Small Causes Court (Rent Controller) Chennai.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2122 of 2020For Petitioner : Mr. S. Subbiah, Senior Counselfor Mr. W.M. Abdul Majeed For Respondents : Mr. S. ParthasarathyO R D E R The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Court below fixing fair rent for the petition mentioned premises.2. The respondents herein filed a Rent Control petition for fixation of fair rent. The learned Rent Controller fixed the rent at Rs.13,473/- and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in R.C.A No.498 of 2008 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chennai. The Appellate Authority agreed with the findings of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that jural relationship of the landlord and the tenant is specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner in the main petition for fixation of fair rent and 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2122 of 2020the respondents failed to lead any evidence with regard to the tenancy. Even though the respondents failed to lead any evidence to prove the existence of landlord and tenant relationship, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have erroneously assumed existence of landlord and tenant relationship and proceeded to fix fair rent.4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was examined as RW1 and in her evidence she had clearly admitted the ownership of the respondents / landlord over the demised premises and in the absence of any plausible explanation on the side of the petitioner to prove her character of possession, the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner was the tenant under the respondents and proceeded to fix the fair rent.5. The respondents herein filed a petition for fixation of fair rent treating the petitioner as a tenant. The petitioner filed a counter affidavit denying the landlord – tenant relationship between the parties. When jural relationship between the parties as landlord-tenant is specifically denied in the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2122 of 2020counter affidavit filed by the petitioner. It is the duty of the respondents to prove the same by leading evidence. For the reasons best known to the respondents, they have not entered the witness box and proved the alleged landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents. On behalf of the respondents, only the Engineer was examined as PW1. He only deposed about the value of the building and fair rent to be fixed for the building. Therefore the evidence of PW1 Engineer is not at all useful to prove the jural relationship. In the absence of any evidence available on record to prove the jural relationship, the Rent Controller relied on the evidence of RW1 to come to the conclusion that she admitted the jural relationship. The relevant portion of the evidence of the petitioner as RW1 reads as follows:-“bkhj;jk; 135 gpshl;Lfspy; kDr; brhj;Jk; xU gpshl;L me;j 135 gpshl;Lk; kDjhuu; fPjhutp bgaupy; fl;olk; fl;Ltjw;F mDkjp th';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ epiwa gpshl;Lfs; fPjh utp neuhfr; brd;W fpuak; gjpt[ bra;J bfhLj;jpUf;fpwhu;/ kDr;brhj;jpw;F ,Jtiu fPjhutp fpiuag; gj;jpuk; vGjpf; bfhLf;ftpy;iy/ thlif bfhLf;fhky; ,Ug;gjw;fhf ehd; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; bgha; rhl;rp mspf;fpnwd; vd;why; rupay;y”6. The reading of the above evidence of the petitioner as RW1 would indicate that she had admitted the petition mentioned premises was located in 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2122 of 2020a flat complex and originally the deceased respondent Gita Ravi had executed several sale deeds in respect of other flats. If at all, the said statement made by the petitioner would amount to admission of respondents' right over the property, but however she had not made any admission regarding the tenancy between the petitioner and the respondents.7. The learned Rent Controller observed that the petitioner herein failed to prove her right or title over the petition mentioned property. In the absence of any evidence to show her right, her possession shall be treated as that of tenancy. The said finding reached by the Rent Controller was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Therefore, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the petitioner is the tenant under the respondents only on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove the character of her possession. The respondent Gita Ravi filed a Rent Control Original Petition for fixation of fair rent on the ground that the petitioner is a tenant under her. Therefore it is a bounden duty of the respondents to prove the landlord-tenancy relationship. As mentioned earlier, the respondents failed to lead any evidence to prove the landlord – tenancy relationship. Merely because the 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2122 of 2020petitioner failed to convince the Court under what authority she had been occupying the building, her possession cannot be treated as that of tenant. The petitioner may be a purchaser or a permissive occupier or even a trespasser. The owner of a building will not become landlord within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, unless he proves existence of jural relationship. The respondents failed to lead any evidence to show there is a tenancy agreement between them and petitioner and hence they are entitled to receive rent from petitioner. Therefore, the finding reached by the Courts below that the petitioner is a tenant under the respondents is the finding based on no evidence and as a result, the same is liable to be set aside as perverse. 8. In the result, when the landlord – tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents is not established, the original petition filed by the respondents for fixation of fair rent is not at all maintainable. The Courts below ought not to have proceeded to fix the fair rent, when the petition itself is not maintainable.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2122 of 20209. Accordingly this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 31.07.2018 passed in R.C.A No.498 of 2008 on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority) at Chennai confirming the fair and decreetal order dated 21.09.2007 passed in R.C.O.P. No.1765 of 2006 on the file of the learned X Judge, Small Causes Court (Rent Controller) Chennai. No costs. 11.03.2024Index: Yes / NoSpeaking order: Yes / NoNeutral Citation: Yes / NomjsTo1. The VIII Judge, Small Causes Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority),Chennai.2. The X Judge, Small Causes Court (Rent Controller),Chennai.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2122 of 2020S.SOUNTHAR, J.mjsC.R.P.No.2122 of 202011.03.20248/8