N PALANI Vs. ESTATE OF JANAKIAH CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED over the judgment and decree delivered in R.C.A.No.891 of 2005 by the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai dated 2.1.2006 against the order dated 24.6.2005 passed in M.P.No.396 of 2005 in R.C.O.P.No.20 of 2005 on the file of the XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, and the judgment and decree delivered in R.C.A.No.94 of 2005 by the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai dated 9.9.2005 against the order dated 22.7.2004 passed in M.P.No.148 of 2004 in R.C.O.P.No.1761 of 2003 on the file of the XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, these civil revisions are filed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is a tenant and the respondent is landlord. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.20 of 2005 and R.C.O.P.No.1761 of 2003 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Rent Control Act. During pendency of the rent control proceedings the petitioner filed M.P.No.396 of 2005 in R.C.O.P.No.20 of 2005 to decide the issue of maintainability of the RCOP as preliminary issue and during enquiry in M.P.No.90 of 2004 he has also filed M.P.No.148 of 2004 in R.C.O.P.No.1761 of 2003 to decide the issue of maintainability of the RCOP as preliminary issue.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that Section 10(8) of the Act clearly indicates that no person who is receiving the rent of a building merely as an agent of the landlord shall, except with the previous written consent of the landlord be entitled to apply for eviction of a tenant that the payment of the rent made by the petitioner to the "Estate of Janakiah Chetty" alone will not confer the right on the respondent to file eviction petition that on the demise of R.K. Janakiah Chetty, the property devolved on all the legal heirs of R.K. Janakiah Chetty, hence the eviction petition should have been filed by all the legal heirs or an administrator duly appointed by a competent court to administer the alleged estate of R.K.Janakiah Chetty by way of letters of administration or probate issued by competent court to enable the respondent to file the eviction petition in such capacity that in the absence of proper presentation of the eviction petition by a person having suitable authority and capacity, the Rent Controller cannot go into the issues set out in the eviction petition without going into the initial question of the maintainability that as the respondent had obtained a separate income tax "PAN NUMBER" in the name of the estate of R.K.Janakiah Chetty the petition as framed and filed by the respondent is not maintainable that the respondent has no legal entity in law or a person as defined in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to file the eviction proceedings and that the petitioner has been paying the rents in respect of the petition premises to the respondent, the same will not empower the respondent to file the eviction proceedings.