MESSRS GODREJ SOAPS LIMITED Vs. AMBUJAMMAL DECEASED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON Order These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the proceedings instituted by the respondents herein, against the petitioner, in R.C.O.P. Nos. 2497/82, 1692/85 and 3664 of 1992. In R.C.O.P. Nos. 2497/82 and 1692/85 filed by the respondents under Ss. 10(2)(vii), 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as ?the Act?, an order for eviction was prayed for against the petitioner on the ground of wilful denial of title, bona fide requirement of the premises for the use and occupation of the respondents (though the claim under this head was later given up) and wilful default in payment of rent. R.C.O.P. No. 3664 of 1982 was filed under S. 4 of the Act for the purpose of fixation of fair rent in respect of the premises in the occupation of the petitioner herein. The premises in question is a non-residential building in the occupation of the petitioner. According to the case of the respondents, Ambujammal (deceased), the first petitioner in the eviction petition, was the landlord of the petition premises, within the meaning of S. 6 of the Act and she was receiving and also entitled to receive, the rent from the petitioner in respect of the premises and was also doing so on behalf of her son, the second petitioner in the eviction petition, who is the first respondent herein. Deceased Ambujammal and the first respondent sold the premises in question to respondents 3 to 5 under a registered sale deed dated 29-1-1982 and also wrote a letter on 29-1-1982 to the petitioner requesting that the rent be paid to respondents 3 to 5 and also for vacating the building. The petitioner is said to have sent a reply to the fourth respondent, according to which, the rent would be sent to respondents 3 to 5 on the basis of the representation made by the deceased Ambujammal and the first respondent herein, without prejudice to their claims, rights, etc. A reply was sent on 11-2-1982 by the respondents requesting the petitioner to remit the rent and thereafter a letter was received from the counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the title of the first respondent got extinguished and that the petitioner claimed title to the property by adverse possession. The claim so made by the petitioner was characterised as denial of the title of the respondents, which was not bona fide, and that justified the passing of an order of eviction against the petitioner. In addition, it was also stated by the respondents that the petitioner had not paid the rent for February, 1982 and such non-payment was wilful which justified the passing of an order for the eviction of the petitioner. In R.C.O.P. 1692 of 1985, in addition to the wilful denial of title attributed to the petitioner, the respondents also charged the petitioner with wilful non-payment of the rent for about 35 months from 1-2-1982 to January, 1985 and that constituted wilful default justifying the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in its occupation. In R.C.O.P. No. 3664 of 1982, filed under S. 4 of the Act, the respondents prayed that the fair rent for the premises in the occupation of the petitioner may be fixed at Rs. 16,426/- per month, after setting out all the relevant data as per the provisions of the Act. The applications so filed were resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not a tenant in respect of the premises, but had acquired title by adverse possession and a suit had already been filed in C.S. No. 253 of 1982 claiming title to the property and as there was a bona fide dispute regarding the title, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition. With reference to the rents paid already, the petitioner stated that a suit had been filed seeking refund of the amount collected from 1967 till the date of sale in favour of respondents 3 to 5. Denying the relationship of landlord and tenant, the petitioner also disputed its liability for the payment of rent to the respondents and it was stated that there was no default, much less wilful default. It was also the further case of the petitioner that having regard to the absence of the relationship of landlord and tenant, and the acquisition of prescriptive title, there was no question of fixation of fair rent as well.

(2.) BEFORE the Rent Controller, on behalf of the respondents, Exhibits P1 to P-21 were marked and P.Ws. 1 and 2 gave evidence, while on behalf of the petitioner, Exhibits R1 to R-9 were filed and R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned Rent Controller found that the denial of title of the respondents by the petitioner was not at all bona fide , that the default in the payment of rents from February, 1982 till January, 1985, was nothing but wilful and that the fair rent for the premises could be fixed at Rs. 14,491/- per month from the date of the petition. Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the petitioner by allowing R.C.O.P. Nos. 2497/82 and 1692/85. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed R.C.A. Nos. 353 and 355 of 1988 against the order in R.C.O.P. Nos. 2497/82 and 1692/85 and R.C.A. 354 of 1988 against R.C.O.P. No. 3664 of 1982. The respondents filed R.C.A. 20 of 1989 against the order passed in R.C.O.P. 3664 of 1982 fixing the fair rent for the budding at Rs. 14,491/-. All the appeals were heard together after reception of additional evidence and disposed of by a common judgment. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, holding that the denial of title of the respondents by the petitioner was wilful and that the default in the payment of rent was also wilful. In so far as the fixation of fair rent was concerned, the Appellate Authority dismissed R.C.A. 354/85 filed by the petitioner, but determined the fair rent in respect of the premises in the occupation of the petitioner at Rs. 19,775/- per month and to this extent R.C.A. 20 of 1989 was allowed. It is the correctness of the common order so passed, that, is questioned by the petitioner in these revision petitions.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the authorities below have virtually proceeded to decide the question of title to the premises in the occupation of the petitioner and that was not in order, as what was contemplated by S. 10(2)(vii) of the Act, was whether the denial was made simply or casually or was bona fide . It was further submitted that functioning under S. 10 of the Act, the authorities do not have the jurisdiction to embark upon a detailed enquiry to adjudicate upon the title, especially when the question of title formed the subject matter of another litigation in C.S. No. 253 of 1982. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the documentary evidence available clearly established that right from 1967 onwards till January, 1982, the petitioner was in occupation only as a tenant and the putting forward of the plea of acquisition of title by prescription, in denial of the title of the respondents was nothing but wilful and that justified the passing of an order of eviction against the petitioner. Reliance in support of the respective contentions was placed by learned counsel on both sides on quite a number of decisions.