M RAMACHANDRAN Vs. A MUNUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Civil Revision Petitions are arisen from the order dated 13.3.2007 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority-cum-VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in R.C.A. Nos.730 and 731 of 2004, whereby the order passed by the Rent Controller-cum-XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai in R.C.O.P. Nos.92 and 91 of 1999 dismissing the Applications filed by the revision petitioner for eviction was reversed, by granting order of eviction.

(2.) ORIGINALLY both the respondents in these Civil Revision Petitions filed R.C.O.P. Nos.91 and 92 of 1999 against the revision petitioners, alleging that the first respondent is the father of the petitioners and the sec respondent; that the premises bearing Door No.6, Bharathiswarar Colony Street, Kodambakkam originally belonged to the first respondent; that under a registered settlement deed dated 13.10.1995, the first respondent settled the property in favour of the second respondent and thus the second respond is the absolute owner of the property; that the petitioners were tenants under the first respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-, besides electricity and water charges for residential purpose; that the petitioners failed to pay the rent from March, 1996 and committed willful default; that they are causing nuisance to the respondents and creating unpleasant scenes during night hours and that the property is required for demolition and for the purpose of new construction. Under the circumstances, the revision petitioners were to be evicted from the property.

(3.) IN support of the Civil Revision Petitions, learned counsel Mr. Lakshminarayanan would submit that in the instant case, the property belongs to the joint family, in which the revision petitioners have got their respective shares; that they have filed a Suit for partition; that they have denied the exclusive title of either the first respondent or the second respondent in R.C.O.P. Nos.91 and 92 of 1999. Even assuming, settlement deed was executed, the possession should have been given to the second respondent, but the same was not acted upon. Even if it is true, the first respondent need not be added as party. There was no rental payment at any point of time either to the first respondent or to the second respondent. The petitioners made payments towards maintenance charges only. The respondents are calling themselves as landlords. IN the instant case, there was a thorough denial of title. The denial of title was also bona fide, which could be seen from the circumstances noticed.