The revision petitioners are the subsequent purchasers, who were
unsuccessful before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in securing
the order of eviction from the petition non-residential premises, viz., one
shop in premises No.17, Ranganathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 on the ground
of denial of title.
2. The Rent Control Original Petition was originally filed by the
second respondent herein claiming that he is the owner of the ground, shops
and premises bearing door No.17, Ranganathan Street, T.Nagar, Madras-17
measuring 5 grounds in which the first respondent herein is a tenant in
respect of the petition shop on a monthly rent of Rs.650/-. It is further
stated that the first respondent herein became a tenant in 1968. Rental
receipts have been issued for the rent paid. The electricity connection has
been obtained for the shop in the name of the first respondent herein after
getting consent letter from the second respondent herein. The first
respondent herein filed a suit O.S.No.8680 of 1993 on the file of the V
Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras claiming that she is the owner of
the superstructure and she has paid only the ground rent to the second
respondent herein. The second respondent herein is the absolute owner of the
superstructure and the land in respect of the petition shop. But, by filing
the said suit the first respondent herein has denied the title of the second
respondent without bona fide.
3. The petition was opposed in the counter that the first respondent
herein is occupying the petition shop on a monthly rent of Rs.650/- for the
land only and the superstructure belongs to her and she filed the suit
O.S.No.8680 of 1993 and obtained order of interim injunction in I.A.No.18738
of 1993 and also filed I.A.No.18737 of 1993 restraining the second respondent
herein not to alienate the property. Therefore, the first respondent herein
denied the title of the second respondent herein bona fide with respect to the
superstructure alone and the land belongs to the second respondent herein.
The Rent Control Original Petition as filed is not maintainable. The schedule
mentioned property, which was vacant land originally, bearing door No.21,
Ranganathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 originally belonged to the second
respondent's father A.P.N.Abdul Gaffar and on his death, it devolved upon the
second respondent herein. From 1979, the door number has been changed as
No.17. The front portion of the property facing Ranganathan Street are shops
and the back portion of the larger extent are residential houses. The first
respondent herein is occupying 45 feet North to South and 6.3 feet East to
West measuring about 283.5 square feet facing Ranganathan Street which leads
to Usman Road. Originally in the said vacant land one Smt.Subbammal, wife of
S.V.S. Palaniappa Chettiar was doing business, and she sold the
superstructure made up of wooden blocks to one Selvaraj Fernando, son of
Jebamalai Fernando residing at No.15, Station Road, Kodambakkam, Chennai for
Rs.1,501/- on 3.11.1963. Then, Selvaraj Fernando sold the superstructure to
one Thommy, son of Maria Navias Fernando residing at No.17, Ulagappa Maistry
Street, Chindadripet, Chennai, who in turn sold the superstructure to the
first respondent herein for Rs.3,100/- on 4.9.1 968. After purchase, the
first respondent herein invested several lakhs and running a fancy shop. The
first respondent herein gave a registered power as per document No.1, Book
No.4 between the pages 23 7-240 registered in the Sub Registrar Office at
Kamudhi in favour of M.V.N.Samsugani and the power of holder is running the
shop in the name of M/s.Asha Gold Covering Works. The second respondent's
father Abdul Gaffar issued receipt for the advance amount of Rs.200/- paid by
the first respondent herein on 1.8.1968.
4. Before the Rent Controller, the second respondent herein examined
himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-4 and Samsugani, the husband of the
first respondent herein was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R-1 to R-14 were marked.
The learned Rent Controller considering such evidence found that the denial of
title by the first respondent herein to the petition shop in favour of the
second respondent herein is bona fide and ultimately dismissed the Rent
Control Original Petition. Aggrieved against the said order, the landlord,
viz., the second respondent herein has filed the Rent Control Appeal.
5. During the pendency of the Rent Control Appeal, the revision
petitioners were added as subsequent purchasers of the petition shop and
ranked them as appellants 2 to 5 as per order in I.A.No.416 of 1998 dated
15.2.1999 in the appellate Court. Against the order dated 15.2 .1999, it
appears, no appeal was filed.
6. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the Rent
Control Appeal confirming the dismissal of the Rent Control Original Petition.
Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the subsequent purchasers have
filed this Civil Revision Petition claiming that they are the owners and
landlords of the petition shop.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the
learned counsel for the first respondent.
8. The Rent Control Original Petition was filed originally by the
second respondent herein claiming that he is the owner of the petition shop in
premises bearing door No.17, Ranganathan Street, T.Nagar, Madras-17. Further,
it is the case of the second respondent herein that the first respondent
herein is a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.650/-.
Though it is admitted by the first respondent herein that she is the tenant
and has been paying rent at the rate of Rs.650/- per month, according to her,
she is only tenant of the land and not that of the superstructure which
belongs to her in view of purchase under Ex.R-4 dated 4.9.1968, which
superstructure was previously dealt with under Exs.R-2 and R-3 and finally
came into the hands of the first respondent herein pursuant to Ex.R-4. The
first respondent herein also filed the suit O.S.No.8680 of 1993 before the
learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras for permanent injunction
that her possession should not be disturbed with except by due process of law
and also not to alienate the property by the defendant in that suit, viz., the
second respondent herein, who originally filed the Rent Control Original
Petition.
9. It is admitted by the first respondent herein that she became a
tenant of the land under Abdul Gaffar, the father of the second respondent
herein who originally filed the Rent Control Original Petition. According to
the first respondent herein she paid advance under Exs.R-6 and R-7 to the said
Abdul Gaffar. Ex.R-6 dated 1.8.68 is the receipt issued by the said Abdul
Gaffar to the first respondent herein for a sum of Rs.200/- towards advance
for the bunk shop rented out to her and situated adjacent to their textile
shop. Ex.R-7 is the another receipt dated 1.8.82 for Rs.500/- towards further
advance for the said shop and that receipt was also issued by the said Abdul
Gaffar. Therefore, it is clear from Exs.R-6 and R-7 that the first respondent
became a tenant in respect of the petition shop and not only in respect of the
land. If really the first respondent herein became a tenant only in respect
of the land, she could not have paid advance under Exs.R-6 and R-7 for the
petition bunk shop, especially after Ex.R-4 dated 4.9.1968, as per which, the
first respondent herein has purchased the bunk shop from one M.Thommy. In the
rental receipts Ex.P-1 series and Ex.R-5 series, it is only mentioned that the
rent was paid only in respect of the shop. Nowhere it is mentioned that the
rental receipts were issued in respect of the land only.
10. Merely because electric meter card was issued to the petition
shop in the name of the first respondent herein under Ex.R-8, it cannot be
said that she is the owner of the petition shop. The property tax has also
been paid under Ex.P-3 by the second respondent herein in respect of the
entire premises bearing door No.17. Therefore, it is clear from Ex.P-1
series, Ex.P-3, Ex.R-5 series, Exs.P-6 and P-7 that the second respondent
herein, who originally filed the R.C.O.P., was the owner and in view of the
purchase from the second respondent herein as ordered in I.A.No.416 of 1998
dated 15.2.1999, the revision petitioners are the owners of the petition
premises. It follows the denial of title by the first respondent herein in
respect of the petition shop to the second respondent herein and after
purchase, to the revision petitioners, who have become the owners pursuant to
the purchase made by them from the second respondent herein, is without bona
fide.
11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that the
Rent Control Original Petition was filed only on the ground of denial of
title. However, inasmuch as the rent has not been paid, the eviction is to be
ordered on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent also. But, the
Rent Control Original Petition was not amended to that effect even after
filing of the counter by the first respondent herein, that the first
respondent has not committed wilful default in payment of rent and specifying
the period. Therefore, there is no force in the contention put-forth by the
learned counsel for the revision petitioners that eviction is to be ordered on
the ground of wilful default in payment of rent also.
12. The Rent Control Original Petition was filed only on the ground
of denial of title and not on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent,
in that pleading with regard to the wilful default should be specific.
Therefore, the decision in the case of V.Ramadoss and another vs. -
Udayakumar reported in 2002(5) C.T.C. 541 relied on by the learned counsel
for the revision petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the present
case on hand.
13. The learned Rent Controller and the learned Rent Control Appellate
Authority have not recorded proper finding that the denial of title by the
first respondent herein is bona fide and as such, such finding is to be set
aside
14. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed with cost,
setting aside the judgment and decree dated 19.4.2000 made in R.C.A.No.365 of
1995 by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and ordering eviction on
the ground of denial of title.
Index :Yes.
Internet:Yes.
ts.
To
1) The Registrar,
Small Causes Court,
Madras.
2) The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court,
Madras.