DINESH KUMAR JAIN Vs. N.RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petitions in CRP.PD.No.2723 and 2724 of 2013 have been filed against the order of delivery of possession passed in EP.Nos.73 and 74 of 2011 in RCOP.Nos.22 and 23 of 2010 dated 28.06.2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif at Vellore thereby allowing the petitions for delivery of possession. The civil revision petitions in CRP.PD.Nos.3361 and 3362 of 2015 have been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.06.2015 passed in IA.Nos.53 and 54 of 2013 in RCOP.Nos.22 and 23 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vellore thereby dismissing the petitions to condone the delay in filing the set aside the exparte order passed in Rent Control proceedings.

(2.) In all the civil revision petitions, the petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. The respondent filed eviction petition on the ground of wilful default, acts of waste and owner's occupation. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner was inducted as tenant for non residential shop premises by unregistered agreement dated 01.08.1999 between the petitioner and the erstwhile owner's wife of the petition premises. On 18.06.2003, the respondent purchased petition premises for valid sale consideration and after the date of purchase of the petition premises, the respondent became absolute owner of the petition premises. Thereafter, the petitioner paid rent regularly to the respondent and from the month of April 2008, the petitioner failed to pay the rent. Further he also caused damages to the floors, doors and halls of the petition premises and not maintained properly. Since the respondent is carrying the business of beedi threads at large scale, he needs the petition premises for his own occupation to develop his business. On receipt of the notice from the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner failed to appear before the learned Rent Controller and as such he was set exparte and ordered eviction dated 07.10.2010.

(3.) Mr.E.Om Prakash, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the petition premises having been purchased the same in auction sale under the SARFAESI Act. Sale was brought by the Indian Bank, Vellore under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner was originally inducted as tenant by the erstwhile owner of the petition premises on 01.05.2000 and also entered into sale agreement. The erstwhile owner of the petition premises borrowed loan with the Indian Bank and thereafter he committed default. Therefore, the Indian Bank has initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by issuing demand notice. Thereafter, the petition premises were brought for auction sale, in which the petitioner purchased the petition premises which was mortgaged with Indian Bank by the registered sale deed dated 13.05.2008 which was registered as document No.5380 of 2008 on the file of the Joint Registrar-I, Vellore. While being so, the respondent issued notice on 27.05.2008 to the petitioner stating that he had purchased the petition premises under the registered sale deed dated 18.06.2003 vide document No.3888 and 3890 of 2003 on the file of the Joint Sub Registrar, Vellore and demanded rent for the petition premises. Immediately, the petitioner informed that he is not the tenant under him and he is the tenant under the borrower and subsequently the petition premises was brought for sale and the same was purchased by him under SARFAESI Act proceedings. In fact, the petitioner paid rents to the erstwhile landlord till August 2008. 3.1 He further submitted that the respondent filed suit inOS.No.242 of 2010 for declaration in respect of the petition premises. In the meanwhile, the respondent also filed the present rent control proceedings for eviction on the ground of wilful default, acts of waste and owner's occupation. Due to wrong advice, the petitioner failed to contest the rent control proceedings. Therefore, by order dated 07.10.2010, exparte order of eviction was passed by the learned Rent Controller. In pursuant to the order of eviction, the respondent also filed execution petition in EP.Nos.73 and 74 of 2011. The petitioner filed his counter in the execution petition and both the execution petitions ordered by order dated 28.06.2013. Therefore, the petitioner filed petitions to set aside the exparte order with the delay of 978 days to set aside the exparte order. In the execution proceedings, though the petitioner filed detailed counter stating the above facts, the execution court ordered delivery of possession. The condone delay petition in both the RCOP was dismissed and delivery was also ordered in the execution proceedings. As against all the orders, the present civil revision petitions are filed. 3.2 He further submitted that in the suit filed by the respondent in OS.No.242 of 2010, the petitioner filed written statement along with counter claim for declaration in respect of schedule mentioned property. While pending the counter claim, the respondent filed petition to withdraw the suit. However, it was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed civil revision petition before this Court in CRP.No.3134 of 2018. This Court by order dated 19.02.2021 permitted the respondent to withdraw his claim in OS.No.242 of 2010 and shall continue the suit in respect of counter claim made by the petitioner herein. He further submitted that already the petition premises was mortgaged with the Indian Bank and as such the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent is invalid and declared to be null and void. In the meanwhile, in the short cut method, the respondent filed petition for eviction and unfortunately the petitioner failed to appear before the learned Rent Controller and the same was ordered. Now delivery of possession ordered, not yet recorded in the execution court and execution petition also not terminated.