SORNAM Vs. UMAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner / landlady being aggrieved over the fair and decreetal orders, dated 26.09.2006, passed in R.C.A.No.2 of 2006, on the file of the Sub Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Devakkottai, reversing the fair and decreetal orders, dated 11.01.2005, passed in R.C.O.P.No.14 of 2003, on the file of the learned Rent Controller / District Munsif, Karaikudi, has preferred this civil revision petition.

(2.) The landlady has sought for the eviction of the respondent / tenant on the grounds of wilful default and denial of title. According to the petitioner / landlady, the petition property (hereinafter, referred to as 'the property') originally belonged to the respondent. The respondent and the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the property on 04.04.1997 and on receipt of the entire sale consideration, inasmuch as the respondent asked for some time to deliver the vacant possession of the property, which is in her possession and also in the possession of the tenants under her, as per the recitals found in the sale agreement, the respondent had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner's husband, namely, Lakshmanan for the completion of the sale. Subsequently, the petitioner's husband as the power of attorney holder of the respondent executed a registered deed of conveyance on 13.12.2000 in favour of the petitioner. The respondent has been in the occupation of the property as a tenant at the monthly rent of Rs.650/- and also paid a sum of Rs.1,300/- as advance and with reference to the same, the respondent had also executed an agreement of lease, dated 04.04.1997. Subsequent to the deed of conveyance, dated 13.12.2000, the petitioner has become the owner of the property and inasmuch as the respondent did not pay the rent as promised nor vacated the property as assured by her and the tenants had also vacated and handed over the possession of the property to the respondent, the petitioner has terminated the tenancy of the respondent by issuing a notice, dated 18.05.1999 and though the respondent received the notice, she neither responded to the same nor sent any reply repudiating the contents of the said notice and inasmuch as the petitioner entered into a sale agreement with one Manimegalai for the sale of the property and has to deliver the possession of the property to her and coming to know of the same, the respondent has laid a suit in O.S.No.93 of 2003, on the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai, as if she is still the owner of the property and thereby a police complaint had also been lodged by her and her husband and therefore, considering the above conduct of the respondent in not paying the rent wilfully and also denying the title of the petitioner to the property, the petitioner has been necessitated to prefer the rent control original petition.

(3.) The case of the respondent / tenant in brief is that it is false to state that the respondent had agreed to convey the property in favour of the petitioner as put forth in the petition. The respondent, in view of her family necessity, borrowed a sum of Rs.45,000/- from the petitioner's husband Lakshmanan on 04.04.1997 and in evidence thereof, she had executed a mortgage deed and also handed over the title deeds in respect of the property to the petitioner's husband and thereafter, she has discharged the said debt by adjustment. Therefore, the case of the petitioner that there has been an agreement of sale in respect of the property between the petitioner and the respondent dated 04.04.1997 and pursuant to the same, the respondent had received the entire sale consideration as recited in the sale agreement is false and if the entire sale consideration has been paid on 04.04.1997 itself, there is no need for the execution of the sale agreement and the respondent would have conveyed the property in favour of the petitioner by a pucca conveyance deed. The petitioner taking advantage of the mortgage deed executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner's husband had fraudulently created a sale agreement and it is false to state that the respondent had executed a lease agreement in favour of the petitioner agreeing to pay the monthly rent of Rs.650/- and also paid a sum of Rs.1300/- as advance. The petitioner was not the owner of the property on the date of the sale agreement or on the date of the lease agreement and it is false to state that the sale agreement was executed or time was sought for by the respondent to handover the vacant possession of the property. The petitioner is noway connected with the property and she does not have any ownership in respect of the property and inasmuch as the respondent continued to be the owner of the property, she had not responded to the notice sent by the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to evict the respondent on the grounds put forth in the petition and inasmuch as the petitioner attempted to evict the respondent from the property one way or the other illegally, the respondent had been necessitated to lay the suit, in O.S.No.93 of 2003, before the Sub Court, Devakottai and therefore, the rent control original petition is liable to be dismissed.