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.
Comments