SUBRAMANI Vs. N GOVINDARAJULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenant is the petitioner herein. THE landlord filed a petition for eviction on the grounds of immediate demolition and reconstruction and wilful default in payment of rent under Secs. 14 (l) (b) and 10 (2) (1) of the tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960asamended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as'the Act').

(2.) THE case of the landlord is as under: THE premises at old No. 319 and new door No. 4, Murugappa Street , Triplicane, Madras-5 belongs to the petitioner in the eviction petition. THE respondent in the eviction petition is the tenant in respect of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 8. THE petitioner has already filed a petition for eviction in the year 1968 under sec. l4 (l) (b)of the Act. Even from that time onwards the tenant was not paying the rent to the landlord. THE tenant denied the title of the landlord. Counter was filed in R. C. O. P. No. 3112 of 1969 and eviction was ordered in the said petition. THE tenant filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appeal was dismissed. It is thereafter a revision was filed before this Court, which was also dismissed. While so, according to the landlord, the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from 1. 7. 1969 to October, 1988. THErefore, according to the landlord the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent and thereby rendering himself liable to be evicted under sec. 10 (2) (1) of the act. THE landlord further stated that the petition premises is an old one and therefore, he required the same for immediate demolition and reconstruction.

(3.) THE fact remains that the petition for eviction was filed on two grounds viz. under Secs. l0 (2) (l) and 14 (l) (b) of the Act. At the time of hearing, the ground for eviction under Sec. 14 (l) (b) of the Act was not pressed and the only ground that survived for consideration was eviction sought for on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent under Sec. 10 (2) (]) of the Act. According to the petitioner in the eviction petition the respondent failed and neglected to pay the rent from 1. 7. 1969 to October,1988. THErefore, the tenant is liable to be evicted under Sec. 10 (2) (1) of the Act. It remains to be seen that earlier the petitioner in the eviction petition filed r. C. O. P. No. 3112 of 1969 against the respondent for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. That petition was allowed and eviction was ordered. THE respondent filed R. C. A. No. 213of 1972and that was also dismissed. THE revision filed by the respondent was also dismissed. However, the petitioner did not execute the order of eviction obtained by him under Sec. l4 (l) (b) of the act. Since eviction was ordered in an earlier eviction petition under scc. l4 (l) (b) of the Act, the respondent herein could not press the eviction petition filed under Sec. l4 (l) (b)oftheact. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner herein has committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period. According to the petitioner herein when an order of eviction was passed in an earlier proceeding in r. C. O. P. No. 3112 of 1969 and after reasonable time for eviction has been elapsed, thereafter the relationship of landlord and tenant would not exist between the petitioner and the respondent in the eviction petition and the tenant would be deemed to be a trespasser. This ground raised by the petitioner herein contains sufficient force because once an order of eviction was passed and the timegranted for evicting the tenant from the petition premises is also exhausted, thereafter the respondent in the eviction petition cannot be deemed to be a tenant under the Act, but he would be considered only as a trespasser. When there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to an eviction petition the eviction petition has got to be dismissed for want of relationship of landlord and tenant. After the eviction order was passed in the earlier proceedings in R. C. O. P. No. 3112 of 1969 till the date of filing the present eviction petition, there was no lease agreement between the petitioner and the respondent in the eviction petition so as to enable the petitioner in the eviction petition so as to unable the petitioner in the eviction petition to say that there is relationship of the landlord and tenant between them. THE respondent in the eviction petition was all along denied the title of the petitioner and claiming title in himself. No doubt, in the earlier proceedings eviction was ordered on the basis that the relationship of landlord and the tenant existed between the petitioner and the respondent in the eviction petition. THE point is whether that order would operate res judicata against the petitioner herein. THE answer is that when once an order of eviction is passed against a tenant and that order of eviction was not executed before twelve years period, the relationship of landlord and the tenant would be ceased and the order would become nullity. Now therefore what remains to be considered in the present eviction petition is whether the landlord can file the present petition for eviction under Sec. l0 (2) (l) of the Act. As already seen after the order of eviction was passed and after the time granted in the order of eviction for evicting the tenant also get exhausted, the respondent in the eviction petition would be deemed to be a trespasser and the amount payable by him cannot be called as rent, but it would be damages for use and occupation. When the respondent in the eviction petition is a trespasser, then the petition for eviction cannot be filed under the Rent Control Act.