K SRINIVASAN Vs. V NANDAGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent in R.C.O.P.Nos.15 of 1993 and 18 of 1993 is the petitioner in these civil revision petitions. THE 1st respondent in the Civil Revision Petition No.3525 of 2000 filed R.C.O.P.No.15 of 1993 against the Civil Revision Petitioner before the learned Rent Controller, Villupuram for fixation of fair rent. THE 1st respondent in the Civil Revision Petition No.3531 of 2000 filed R.C.O.P.No.18 of 1993 for an order of eviction under Section 10(3)(a)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent) Control Act, 1960. Pending the above petitions the Civil Revision Petitioner sold the property in question to the respondents 2 to 7 in R.C.O.P. 15 of 1993 on 3.3.97. An ex parte order of eviction was passed on 5.3.97. THE 1st respondent filed I.A.No.37 of 2000 seeking for a direction to implead the purchasers namely the respondents 2 to 7 in the Civil Revision Petition in R.C.O.P. under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151, C.P.C. THE said I.A. was allowed on 21.8.2000. THE respondents in the Civil Revision Petition also filed I.A.No.38 of 2000 under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151, C.P.C. for a direction to amend the petition as set out in the petition in detail in order to determine the real controversy between the parties. THE said petition was allowed on 7.9.2000. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed C.R.P.No.3531 of 2000. THE respondents in the Civil Revision Petition also filed I.A.No.36 of 2000 under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151, C.P.C. to amend the petition in R.C.O.P.No.15 of 1993. THE said petition was also allowed by the learned Rent Controller by order dated 7.9.2000. Aggrieved by the said order, C.R.P.No.3525 of 2000 has been filed.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in both the petitions, the details of the amendment has been furnished by the respondents herein. THE amendment has been sought on the ground of new cause of action. THE learned counsel submitted that R.C.O.P.No.18 of 1993 has been filed for eviction on the ground of owners occupation. Originally, the petition was filed by one V. Nandagopal Chettiar alone on the ground of owners occupation. THE said Nandagopal Chettiar sold the property under two registered sale deeds to Thiru R.S.Mani and Thiru N.K.M. Jiyavudeen on 3.3.97. THE cause of action for eviction being owners occupation which is in the nature of a personal relief cannot be a ground for the subsequent purchasers to agitate the very same petition. THErefore, the learned Rent Controller was not right in allowing the applications in I.A.Nos.36 and 38 of 2000. For the said submission, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in Srinivasan and another v. Santhana Selvaraj and another, 2000 (3) CTC 537 to contend that subsequent purchaser is not entitled to continue claim for eviction on the ground of owners occupation which is "peculiarly personal to erstwhile landlords". THErefore, the learned counsel submitted that both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

(3.) IN view of the law laid down by this court as stated above, I have no doubt in my mind that even though there are no pleadings in the petition as to the denial of title by the tenant, if the landlord establishes either by way of subsequent pleadings as in this case in the affidavit filed in support of the interim applications or in the course of the evidence that the tenant has denied the title, the same could be a ground for eviction. Admittedly, in this case in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. Thiru V. Nandagopal Chettiar has specifically stated that the tenant has denied his title and on that ground the tenant is liable to be evicted. IN my considered view the said averment is sufficient to constitute the pleading for denial of title for seeking an order of eviction. If that be so, the rent control petition for eviction has to be decided by the learned Rent Controller on the ground to denial of title. Once I come to this conclusion, as per the judgment of this Court reported in Srinivasan and another v. Santhana Selvaraj and another, 2000 (III) CTC 537 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the subsequent purchasers are also entitled to prosecute and proceed with the eviction petition filed by the erstwhile landlord for eviction on the ground of denial of title but not on the ground of owners occupation since the ground of owners occupation is "peculiarly personal" to the petitioners in the R.C.O.P. IN that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the civil revision petitions that the subsequent purchasers namely the petitioners 2 to 7 in the R.C.O.P. 15 of 1993 are not entitled to proceed with the eviction petition. Accordingly, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.18534 and 18539 of 2000 are also dismissed.