- (1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in R.C.A.No.27 of 1985 on the file of Appellate Authority, Erode, in which the learned Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal and reversed the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.80 of 1982 on the file of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Erode.
(2.) SHORT facts are: The revision petitioner/ landlord had filed a petition for eviction against the respondent on the ground of act of waste. That claim was resisted by the respondent/ tenant, who would contend that only vacant site was leased out to him and superstructure thereon was put up by the tenant, that the owner of the vacant site is a public trust and as such the landlord, as trustee, cannot file a petition for eviction under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and he had not committed any acts of waste. After enquiry, the learned Rent Controller had found all the points in favour of the landlord and had ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant had filed R.C.A.No.27 of 1985 before the Appellate Authority and had succeeded. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Authority, the landlord has come forward with this civil revision petition. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that it is a private trust and not public trust and as such the finding of the Appellate Authority is wrong. He would further submit that denial of title of the landlord over the superstructure was mala fide and the finding contra is erroneous. He would add that there was no act of waste committed by the tenant. Inter alia he contended that when the Appellate Authority gives a finding that there was bona fide dispute with regard to title, the Appellate Authority ought not to have entered into a discussion with regard to the question whether the trust was a public trust or a private trust and ought not have given a finding thereon. Once the jurisdiction is not there, no finding need be given on other issues. I have heard Mr.G.Subramanian, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, on the above aspects.
(3.) I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned senior counsels. I shall first take up the question as to whether there was a bona fide dispute with regard to title of the building concerned in this petition. If there is a bona fide dispute with regard to title, as per proviso (1) to Sec.10 of the Act, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil court. For the purpose of convenience, I shall extract Scc.l0(l) of the Act, which reads as follows: "10(1) A tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this section or Secs. 14 to 16: Provided that nothing contained in the said sections shall apply to a tenant whose landlord is the Government: Provided further that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Controller shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide and if he records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil court and the court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in the said sections, notwithstanding that the court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded.";