SULOCHANA Vs. R.PANGAJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant is the Revision Petitioner. The Landlords/Respondents filed Petition for eviction on the ground of willful default in payment of rent, for owner's occupation and for demolition and reconstruction. The learned Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of willful default and dismissed the Petition on the ground of owner's occupation and demolition and reconstruction. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction on the ground of willful default and also ordered eviction on the ground of denial of title. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision is filed.

(2.) Mr. Raja Kalifulla, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority erred in ordering eviction on the ground of denial of title when eviction was not sought for on that ground and no evidence was let in to that effect during the trial and in the absence of any pleading, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority ought not to have framed issue to that effect and ordered eviction and therefore, the order of eviction on the ground of willful denial of title is bad and is also against the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in J.J. Lal (P) Ltd. v. M.R. Murali, 2002 3 SCC 98. He further submitted that the authorities below, without properly appreciating the case of the Respondents and also the defence taken by the Revision Petitioner, erred in holding that the Revision Petitioner committed willful default in payment of rent. He further submitted that the authorities below, having found that the Revision Petitioner did not commit willful default as alleged in the Petition and the Landlords/Respondents herein failed to prove that rents were paid to them and also after having held that the rent is only ' 100/- per month and not '200/-, ought not to have ordered eviction on the ground of willful default.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent-Mr. Bharath Kumar submitted that the conduct of the tenant from the filing of the Petition and even earlier to that was to the effect that the Respondents are not the Landlords and they are not entitled to collect rent, even after notice was issued by the Landlords calling upon the Revision Petitioner to pay the rent and considering all these aspects, the Courts below have rightly ordered eviction on the ground of willful default. He further submitted that the Revision Petitioner, having admitted that she is the tenant of the premises, cannot deny the title of the Landlords even after receipt of notice from the Landlords and the conduct of the Tenant in filing Application under Section 9(3) of the Act by impleading the Respondents herein as Landlords would also prove that the Revision Petitioner was aware that the Respondents are the Landlords and she willfully denied the title of the Landlords and did not pay the rent even during the pendency of the proceedings and when the denial was willful, even though no pleading was taken in the Petition filed by the Landlords during the pendency of the proceedings, that can be a ground for eviction and the conduct of the tenant in not paying the rent even during the pendency of the proceedings would also make the default willful and relied upon the judgment in Mettupalayam Municipality v. Shanmugam, 1999 3 MadLJ 691; Ammal Pillai v. Varadarajulu, 1997 1 MadLJ 626; and Surendirakumar v. Balaji Singh, 1998 3 MadLJ 475, in support of his contention. He further submitted that the contention of the Revision Petitioner/Tenant that there was no relationship of Landlord and Tenant between the parties and she was a Tenant under the previous owner and she has not attorned tenancy in favour of the Respondents herein cannot also be accepted having regard to the judgment in Natarajan v. Manimegalai, 2008 1 MadLJ 963.