S.SATHIK ALI Vs. KANNAPPA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arguments advanced by Mr. G.S. Sivakumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner are heard. The grounds of revision, copies of the orders of the Court below and the other documents produced in the form of typed-set of papers are also perused. Admittedly, Kannappa Chettiar (since deceased) was the original landlord, who filed the eviction petition in R.C.O.P. No. 1909 of 1995 before the Rent Controller against one Habib Rahman and Iyyappa Lottery Centre on the premise that the said Habib Rahman was the tenant under Kannappa Chettiar in respect of a non-residential portion in the ground floor of the building bearing Door No. 317, Poonamallee High Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai 29. Eviction was sought for on the ground of willful default in payment of rent, unauthorized subletting to Iyyappa Lottery Centre and for bonafide requirement for additional accommodation. The alleged sub-tenant Iyyappa Lottery Centre did not contest the R.C.O.P. Habib Rahman alone contested the R.C.O.P. on the basis of his counter admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner in the R.C.O.P. and himself and denying the other averments made in the eviction petition. During the pendency of the R.C.O.P. the original petitioner Kannappa Chettiar died and his legal heirs came on record as petitioners 2 to 7. When the order was sought to be executed, the revision petitioner made an obstruction and filed E.A. No. 104 of 2011 claiming that his father Sikanther Ali was the tenant in respect of the petition premises and after his death, he became the tenant and that the eviction order obtained against Habib Rahman could not be executed and enforced against the revision petitioner.

(2.) The learned Rent Controller, after hearing, held that the revision petitioner was a person set up by the judgment debtor to resist the execution of a valid eviction order and accordingly dismissed the said execution petition by order dated 21.11.2013. As against the order dismissing E.A. No. 104 of 2011, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 658 of 2013. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, after hearing and on re-appreciation of evidence recorded in E.A. No. 104 of 2011, concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 01.02.2014. Questioning the correctness and legality of the said judgment and decree of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the present revision has been filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960.

(3.) The contention of the revision petitioner seems to be that the first judgment debtor Habib Rahman had nothing to do with the tenancy, as he was a person entrusted with the business run by the revision petitioner in the petition premises and that the eviction order obtained against such a person, who was looking after the business on behalf of the revision petitioner, was ineffective against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner in his attempt to contend that he alone is the tenant in respect of the petition premises and Habib Rahman (JD No. 1) was not a tenant as claimed by the respondents herein, who are admittedly the landlords in respect of petition premises, has chosen to take tantalizing stands by projecting the said Habib Rahman as a partner at one place and at another place by contending that Habib Rahman, who was looking after the business on behalf of the revision petitioner, did betray the revision petitioner in not bringing to the notice of the rent controller the fact that the revision petitioner alone was the tenant in respect of the petition premises.