V.T.A. NOOR MOHAMMED Vs. N. SAMIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in R.C.O.P. No. 3 of 1995 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Thiruvarur is the petitioner in these revision petitions. The above said R.C.O.P. was filed by the revision petitioner against the respondent under Section 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for eviction on the ground of willful default, owner's occupation and for demolition and reconstruction. The respondent is contesting the R.C.O.P. by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the revision petitioner and the respondent herein.

(2.) PENDING disposal of the R.C.O.P., the revision petitioner filed an interlocutory application I.A. No. 155 of 2005 in the above said Rent Control petition R.C.O.P. No. 3 of 1995 under Section 11(3) & (4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) act, 1960, seeking an order directing the respondent to pay the rental arrears from March 1993 to September 2005 and to strike off the defence and order eviction in case of failure to comply with such a direction for payment of arrears of rent. The said petition was also contested by the respondent herein contending that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the revision petitioner and the respondent. On the other hand, the respondent contended that he was allowed by one Packiri Mohamed to occupy the petition building on payment of a sum of Rs. 20,000/ -, that he was spending for the maintenance of the building and that the land being one belonging to Sri Thiyagarajaswami temple, Tiruvarur, the existing building was the one constructed by the respondent at his own cost of Rs. 40,000/ -. It was also contended that since there is no lease arrangement and jural relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the revision petitioner and the respondent, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to go into the question of payment of rent and that the application filed under Section 11(3) and (4) of the Act was not legally maintainable.

(3.) AS against the order dated 28.11.2005 made in I.A. No. 55 of 2005 in R.C.O.P. No. 3 of 1995, the respondent herein filed an appeal in R.C.A. No. 32 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge, Thiruvarur). As against the consequential order of eviction dated 05.01.2006 made in R.C.O.P. No. 3 of 1995, the respondent herein preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No. 2 of 2006 on the file of the above said Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal by the separate judgments dated 11.02.2009 and set aside the orders passed by the Rent Controller. As against the judgment and decree of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dated 11.02.2009 made in R.C.A. No. 32 of 2005, C.R.P. No. 1954 of 2012 has been filed and as against the judgment and decree of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dated 11.02.2009 made in R.C.A. No. 2 of 2006, C.R.P. No. 1955 of 2012 has been filed.