S THANAGAPPAN Vs. P PADMAVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the order of the High Court of Madras dated 24-11-1997 in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 3476 of 1985 and 830 of 1997 dismissing these revisions. These appeals arise under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act No. 18 of 1960), hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The short facts are that the appellant is a tenant of the disputed premises, who was running an automobile workshop. The respondent filed the eviction petition against him, on the grounds that he is defaulter, not paid the rents from October, 1982 to May 1983, the said premises is required for demolition and reconstruction and that he has sub-let a portion of the disputed premises.

(2.) The appellant's stand is that earlier he was under an impression that the respondent is the owner of the premises but later he came to know that Arulmigu Athikesava Perumal Peyalwar Devasthanam is the owner of the premises. So he wrote a letter to the said Devasthanam to recognise the appellant as a tenant. Since then and for this reason the appellant did not pay any rent to the respondent bona fide believing the Devasthanam to be the owner. The Rent Controller rejected this defence and held that the appellant committed default in the payment of rent the premises in question is legitimately required by the respondent for demolition and reconstruction. However, the Rent Controller rejected the case of sub-letting, which for the present appeal is not in issue as it has become final. The appellant then filed an appeal.The appellate authority confimed the order passed by the Rent Controller and held, there exists relation of landlord and tenant between the respondent and the appellant and the denial of title by the appellant is not bona fide and the default of payment of rent is wilful. Finally, the appellant filed civil revision before the High Court. The main contention raised before the High Court is also the same as raised before us that the courts below have failed to appreciate on the facts and circumstances of this case that denial of title by the appellant is bona fide and hence non-payment of rent cannot be held to be wilful. The appellant also relied on facts which came into existence, during the pendency of the said revision that in fact the said Devasthanam filed a suit on 30th October, 1987 against the appellant and others, claiming paramount title over the land including disputed one and also for eviction before the City Civil Court, Madras. Reliance is sought to be placed on the reply affidavit of the appellant in the said suit, where it is said he has admitted to be the tenant of the Devasthanam. On the other hand aforesaid revision of the appellant was dismissed for default by the High Court on 27th April, 1989. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for restoration. Meanwhile, the respondent filed execution petition before the Rent Controller. The appellant in this execution also referred to the suit of the Devasthanam, and submitted rent was rightly paid to the temple and not to this respondent thus this execution has become inexecutable. Respondent denied this claim on merit and further objected this being considered in the execution proceedings. It was urged the executing court cannot go beyond the decree. Thus the executing court on 24th September, 1987 rejected the appellant's contention. The appellant thereafter preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 830 of 1997, as aforesaid, before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The application of the appellant for restoration of the revision was allowed. Finally, the High Court dismissed both the said revisions. In the restored revision High Court held, even if the entire property belong to the temple but since at the initial stage through the arrangement with the respondent, the appellant was inducted into the tenancy, the appellant cannot deny his right and title. Consequently, held that non-payment of rent to the respondent was wilful. It also confirmed that the building is required by the respondent for demolition and reconstruction. In the revision, against the order passed by the executing court, the High Court held that merely because the paramount title holder filed a suit, the arrangement between the appellant and the respondent cannot come to an end, hence claim of the appellant was rejected. The appellant aggrieved by these dismissal orders of the High Court in the two revisions, which upheld the concurrent findings recorded by both the authority below has filed the present appeals.