(1.) THE only ground urged in this revision is that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for eviction in this matter. THE landlord filed an application for eviction earlier in 1976 on the ground of wilful default. THE petitioner herein disputed the title of the landlord. Denial of title was found to be bona fide and the landlord was directed to file a civil suit. THE landlord filed a suit for declaration of his title and for recovery of mesne profits. That suit was decreed. THEreafter the present petition for eviction was filed by the landlord. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the only remedy of the landlord was to have asked for eviction in the civil suit itself. Learned counsel places reliance on the second proviso to Sec.10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
(2.) THE Proviso reads as follows: "Provided further that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy the Controller shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide and if he records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil court and the Court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in the said sections, notwithstanding that the Court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded." THE contention is that under the proviso, the landlord shall sue for eviction in the civil court and get a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in the suit notwithstanding that the Court finds that the denial of title does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the denial is unfounded. This language of the section is very significant. It is only an enabling provision. THE section merely says "landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil court and the court may pass a decree for eviction". This does not mean that the landlord shall sue in the civil court and obtain an order for eviction before the civil court. THE jurisdiction is not confined to the civil court. Of course, the landlord should get his title declared in the civil court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel places reliance on the judgment of Mr.M.N.Chandurkar, Chief Justice in C.R.P.No.4664 of 1982, dated 22.8.1986. In that revision petition the tenant denied the title of the landlord claiming that he had put up superstructure. The Rent Controller found against the claim of the tenant on the evidence and ordered eviction. On appeal the Appellate Authority reversed the conclusion of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petition for eviction. As per the order of the Appellate Authority, the superstructure belonged to the tenant. The matter was brought to this Court in revision by the landlord. It was found on facts by this Court that the tenant has miserably failed to prove that the superstructure belonged to him. It was also found that the evidence on record was sufficient to hold that the tenant was a tenant of the superstructure. The order of the Appellate Authority was set aside and the order of the Rent Controller was restored. While dealing with the arguments advanced by counsel on both sides, the learned Chief Justice had occasion to refer to thesecond proviso to Sec.10(1) of the Act. The argument advanced was that the matter should be remanded to the Appellate Authority for a finding on merits as the Appellate Authority had observed that it was not necessary for the Tribunals functioning under the Act to give a definite finding as to whether the demised property was a land or a superstructure. That observation was made by the Appellate Authority in spite of the finding that the superstructure belonged to the tenant. The learned Chief Justice while repelling the plea for remand observed as follows, after referring to the proviso to SeclO(1). "The object of this proviso is that if the Rent Controller finds that denial of the title of the landlord or right of permanent tenancy claimed by the tenant is bona fide, then the landlord should be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil court. The contemplation therefore is that in the case of bona fide disputes with regard to the title the correct forum would be the civil court and not the Rent Controller. This direction however has to be read along with the provisions of Sec.l0(2)(vii). ... ... ... ... However, if the denial is bona fide, then, the tenant can be evicted only by filing a suit in the civil court as contemplated by the proviso. This was really not a case in which the Appellate Authority was called upon to decide the question of denial of title being bona fide or not. The Rent Controller was therefore bound to record a finding with regard to the ownership of the structure."