S JAYALAKSHMI Vs. S P PADMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the civil revision petitions have arisen in this way: One Sriramulu Naidu was the original owner of the property. Jayalakshmi, the first petitioner in C.R.P.No.2895 of 1998 herein, is the wife of Sriramulu Naidu. Sriramulu Naidu and Jayalakshmi had three sons by name Jayachandra Babu, Jayaraman and Mohan Babu. The second petitioner in C.R.P.No.1896 of 1999, Gunavathi, is the wife of Jayachandra Babu, the third petitioner Hemanthkumar Babu, the fourth petitioner N.J.Padmavathi, and the fifth petitioner N.J.Geetha (Minor) are the children of Jayachandra Babu. Apart from the three sons, Sriramulu Naidu had a daughter by name Sarojini, whose husband was one Balakrishnan. Regarding the property in dispute, Sriramulu Naidu executed a settlement deed in favour of Balakrishnan on 17.4.1974. The settlement deed was attested by all his three sons. Sriramulu Naidu died during 1979.

(2.) BALAKRISHNAN had leased out the property to his brother-in-law Jayaraman. Later, BALAKRISHNAN instituted proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.277 of 1982 for wilful default in payment of rent. Eviction was ordered on 30.3.1983. BALAKRISHNAN instituted execution proceedings in E.P.No.592 of 1983. Jayalakshmi and Jayachandra Babu, namely, the widow and son of Sriramulu Naidu obstructed the delivery of possession. The decree-holder BALAKRISHNAN instituted proceedings in M.P.No.995 of 1985 for removal of obstruction. On 30.1.1984. The bailiff reported to the court that the obstruction was removed and possession was delivered. The E.P. was terminated on 17.2.1984. Meanwhile, BALAKRISHNAN preferred a complaint to the police which culminated in C.C.No.2414 of 1984. According to BALAKRISHNAN, subsequent to the delivery of possession, Jayalakshmi and Jayachandra Babu broke open the lock put up by him and committed trespass into the property. The criminal case was tried and Jayalakshmi and Jayachandra Babu were acquitted of the charges on 30.12.1985.

(3.) PENDING R.C.O.P. proceedings, Padmavathy, the purchaser instituted M.P.No.55 of 1997 under Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, seeking direction to the tenants to deposit the rent. In the counter, the petitioners herein contended that there is no contractual relationship of tenant and landlord as existed between them and the petitioner therein. The learned Rent Controller (XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras) passed orders on 5.11.1997 directing the petitioners herein to deposit the arrears of the rent. As against that order, two appeals were preferred, one by petitioners 1 and 2 herein and other by petitioners 2 to 5 herein, i.e., R.C.A.Nos.928 and 930 of 1997 respectively.