N. SANKARAN Vs. R. RAMADOSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the Appellate Authority (Sub-Court, Nagapattinam) dated 2.4.1991 and made in R.C.A. No. 34/89 confirming the order of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Tiruvarur dated 17.10.1989 in RCOP No. 31/80.

(2.) THE first respondent herein (landlord) filed RCOP No. 31/80 against the 2nd respondent herein and the petitioner for their eviction under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(b), 10(2)(vi) and (vii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The landlord's case is that he has purchased the building in question and other buildings with the leasehold rights thereon from one Ramanathan Chettiar who was the previous owner under a registered sale deed dated 7.3.1980 (Ex. A1) for valuable consideration. The said Ramanathan Chettiar's father whose name is also Ramanathan Chettiar purchased the building in question and other building site situate in R.S. Nos. 588 to 594 in No. 2 Vijayapuram Village in a Court auction sale held on 29.10.1935 in E.P. No. 482/34 in execution of SC 75/31 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruvarur. The said sale was confirmed by the Court on 29.10.1935 (Ex. A2) and the Court auction purchaser took possession of the property on 24.3.1939 through Court. The sites over TS Nos. 588 to 594 belong to the Abishega Kattalia of Shri Thiagarajaswamy Devasthanam, Tiruvarur. After purchase, the Court auction purchaser and his son Ramanathan Chettiar have been treated as tenants of the site by the Devasthanam and rents have been received from Ramanathan Chettiar. The last of the lease deed executed by Ramanathan Chettiar in favour of the Devasthanam is dated 1.7.1971. The said Ramanathan Chettiar was a tenant from month to month and the same is not terminated in any manner known to law. After the purchase, the municipal assessments for the petition building and other buildings which stood in the name of Ramanathan Chettiar has been transferred in the name of the first respondent herein and he is paying taxes to Thiruvarur Municipality. He is the owner of the petition building and other buildings. He has also paid the rents due by Ramanathan Chettiar for the site to the Devasthanam. The 2nd respondent herein (S. Sengammal) took the building from Ramanathan Chettiar on a monthly rent of Rs. 6/- and was paying rent to Ramanathan Chettiar. The tenants so paid the rent for some years and later defaulted taking advantage of the fact that Ramanathan Chettiar is a permanent resident of Devakkottai. He has paid municipal taxes for the building on behalf of Ramanathan Chettiar and the same was adjusted in the rent. After the first respondent has purchased, he gave a notice to the tenant Sengammal, calling upon her to pay the rent from 7.3.1980 (date of purchase) and further calling upon them to vacate and surrender possession of the building. The tenant gave a reply notice on 23.6.1980 through her advocate in which she has wilfully denied the title of the landlord and Ramanathan Chettiar. She claims to be a direct tenant of the site under the Devasthanam. According to the landlord, the second respondent Sengammal- tenant took the building under Ramanathan Chettiar and therefore, she is bound to pay the rent and surrender possession to Ramanathan Chettiar and now to the first respondent herein Ramadoss and to none else. The Devasthanam has no right to collect the rent from Sengammal or any other tenant of Ramanathan Chettiar for the simple reason that the lease in favour of Ramanathan Chettiar is still subsisting and enures for the first respondent also. The petitioner-sub-tenant has wilfully denied the title of the landlord and the same is absolutely mala fide. The tenant Sengammal and Sankaran who claims right under the said Sengammal are liable to be evicted from the building in question for wilful denial of title. Admittedly, the tenants have not paid the rent to the landlord from 7.3.1980 in spite of a registered notice. The default is wilful and mala fide and therefore the tenant is liable to be evicted for wilful default in payment of rent. It is submitted that the original letting by Ramanathan Chettiar to the 2nd respondent herein was for residence and she has sub-let the petition building to Sankaran the petitioner in this revision where he is vending coffee under the name of Andavar Coffee Bar. The sub-letting is without the written consent or knowledge of Ramanathan Chettiar. Because of the non-payment of rent, the tenant has rendered herself liable for eviction and also for putting the building to a different user. The sub-tenant Sankaran has been added as a party in order to have an effective adjudication since he claims to be a sub-lessee under Sengammal.

(3.) SENGAMMAL (tenant) remained ex parte though she sent a reply to the petitioner in the eviction petition after his purchase to his notice calling upon her to vacate and surrender possession of the building. The reply notice was served on 23.6.1980 through her advocate in which she wilfully denied the title of Ramadoss and Ramanathan Chettiar. The notice dated 12.6.1980 and the reply dated 23.6.1980 have been marked as Ex. A30 and A31. Though she sent a reply under Ex. A31 denying the landlord's title etc., she did not appear before the Court and contested the proceedings. She remained ex parte not only before the Rent Controller, but also before the Appellate Authority and also before this Court. The petition was contested only by the petitioner in this revision petition. Before the Rent Controller Exs. A1 to A68 and B1 to B38 were marked, on behalf of the landlord and the tenant respectively. The landlord Ramadoss examined himself as PW 1 and also examined 3 other witnesses as PWs 2 to 4 including Ramanathan Chettiar. The petitioner in this revision has examined himself as RW 1. The learned Rent Controller on a detailed consideration of the materials placed before him both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that Sengammal was a tenant from the year 1946 and Sankaran was a sub-tenant under Sengammal. He has also held that the tenant is in arrears from 7.3.1980 and therefore has committed wilful default in payment of rent and that she has also wilfully denied the title of the landlord. The Rent Controller has also criticised her conduct in dragging on the matter for a period of about 9 years and odd, before the Rent Controller. Thus, for this reason and also for the various reasons, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction petition. Aggrieved by the same, the sub-tenant alone has preferred R.C.A. 34/89 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Sub-Court) Nagapattinam against the landlord and also impleading Sengammal as 2nd respondent. The appellate Authority after framing necessary points for determination and also on a consideration of the voluminous documents filed by the landlord and the tenant and also of the evidence, oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the tenant has wilfully committed default in payment of rent from 7.3.1980 onwards and also held that the denial of title by the tenant is also wilful and mala fide. In the concluding portion, it is held that there is ample evidence to show that there is landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and therefore, non-payment of rent from 7.3.1980 is wilful and the denial of landlord's title is mala fide. Therefore, the Appellate Authority has confirmed the finding of the landlord Rent Controller and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the sub-tenant alone has preferred the above revision under Section 25 of the Act.