J.PACKIAM Vs. P.RAJE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is at the instance of the second and third respondents in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2018, on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Theni, praying to strike off R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2018 on the grounds that the first and second respondents herein who filed the eviction petition, were not landlords and they are not entitled to claim rents or seek eviction on the ground of non-payment of rents, alleging wilful default committed by the tenant.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, viz., the petitioners in the R.C.O.P proceedings.

(3.) The case of the respondents 1 and 2 before the Rent Controller is that the petition premises originally belonged to Late M.Jeyaram, who is the father-in-law of the first respondent and grandfather of the second respondent. The said Jeyaram died on 14/8/2017 leaving behind the respondents 2 and 3, viz., revision petitioners herein, besides themselves, who were wife and son of the pre-deceased son Poongundran. According to the respondents 1 and 2, the said Jeyaram died intestate and they were entitled to 1/3rd share in the property and consequently, 1/3rd share in the rents that were due and payable by the tenant, namely, the first respondent in the R.C.O.P., who has been cited as third respondent in the Civil Revision Petition. It is further stated in the eviction petition that the respondents 1 and 2 sent a notice to the tenant calling upon him to pay Rs.7,333.00 per month towards their share of the rent and that the tenant had sent an undated reply stating that he was not in any default and that he is paying the rent to the second respondent, viz,. first revision petitioner herein and further contended that he had paid Rs.8,00,000.00 to Late Jeyaram and therefore, he was not liable to pay anything to the respondents 1 and 2. The revision petitioners were impleaded as respondents 2 and 3 in the R.C.O.P proceedings and it has been specifically stated in the R.C.O.P that the respondents 2 and 3 had brought about some agreement and arrived at an understanding with the tenant and the same would not bind the respondents 1 and 2. The revision petitioners have filed a counter in the said R.C.O.P stating that no doubt, the said M.Jeyaram was the owner of the property. However, during his life time, he had executed a Will on 13/8/2017, bequeathing the petition premises to the third respondent, viz., second revision petitioner herein and that even during the life time of his father, it was only the second revision petitioner, who was collecting rents and that he has also filed O.P.No.2 of 2017 for probating the said Will of his father. He has also stated that the respondents 1 and 2 have filed a suit for partition in which suit also, the petition premises has been included as one of the items available for partition and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the R.C.O.P. on the ground that it was not maintainable.