TECH ZONE ENTERPRISES Vs. V. ESWARAMURTHY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in these second appeals is in respect of a building governed by The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The 1st respondent is, admittedly, the owner of the building in question. According to the 1st respondent, the said building was given on rental basis to the 2nd respondent in his individual capacity in the year 2006 on a monthly rent of Rs.30,000/ -. It was rented out actually by the father of the 1st respondent. On certain grounds available to the 1st respondent herein, subsequently, he field RCOP No. 6 of 2010 before the Rent Controller -cum -District Munsif, Erode, under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act seeking to evict the 2nd respondent. The learned Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on 30.03.2011 thereby directing the 2nd respondent herein to vacate and handover vacant possession to the 1st respondent herein. That order has become final. But, the 2nd respondent did not comply with the said order. Therefore, the 1st respondent has initiated execution proceedings in E.P. No. 43 of 2011 for delivery of vacant possession.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the said Execution Proceedings, the appellant herein, which is a partnership firm known as "M/s. Tech Zone Enterprises" represented by its Managing Partner - Mr.A.Parameshwaran, filed an obstruction petition in E.A. No. 125 of 2012. In that petition, the appellant herein contended that the building was given on rent only to the partnership firm viz., M/s. Tech Zone Enterprises and not to the 2nd respondent in his individual capacity. The 2nd respondent himself is a partner in the said firm. The partnership firm came into being in the year 2002 by means of an unregistered deed of partnership. Thereafter, in its place, a registered deed of partnership was executed on 14.09.2012. Thus, according to the appellant, the partnership alone is the tenant and by suppressing the same, the respondents 1 and 2 had colluded to obtain an order of eviction in RCOP No. 6 of 2010 as though the 2nd respondent is the tenant. The said obstruction petition was filed on 18.09.2012. Before the Rent Controller, the 1st respondent filed a counter contending that there was no privity of contract between the 1st respondent and the appellant firm at all. The appellant firm was never the tenant and, therefore, the obstruction petition is liable to be dismissed, he contended.

(3.) HAVING considered the above materials, the learned Rent Controller passed an order on 27.11.2013 thereby dismissing the obstruction petition. In the said order, though the learned Rent Controller had given a finding that the appellant firm was the tenant, the Rent Controller, dismissed the obstruction petition on certain other grounds. Challenging the same, the appellant firm filed an appeal in A.S. No. 4 of 2014 before the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode. As against the finding that there was privity of contract between 1st respondent and the appellant firm, the 1st respondent filed a cross objection in A.S. No. 4 of 2014. Having considered the above, the first appellate court, by judgement and decree dated 07.11.2014, dismissed the appeal in A.S. No. 4 of 2014 and allowed the cross objection thereby holding that there was no privity of contract between the appellant firm and the 1st respondent.