- (1.) CIVIL Revision Petition No. 1693 of 1991 is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority (Sub Court, Nagapattinam) made in r. C. A. No. 37 of 1989, dated 2. 4. 1991, confirming the orders of the Rent Controller, district Munsif, Thiruvarur in R. C. O. P. No. 32 of 1986, dated 30. 10. 1989.
(2.) THE civil revision petition was filed by Packiriswamy, who was the respondent before the Rent Controller, Thiruvarur in R. C. O. P. No. 32 of 1986. THE said petition was filed by Ramadoss, the respondent herein, praying for an order of eviction under Sec. 10 (2) (i) and (vii) of the Tamil Nadu buildings (Lease and Control) Act, 1960 from the premises bearing Door no. 25-B-1, T. S. No. 592, in Thanjavur Road, Tiruvarur, of an extent of 752 sq. ft. Before the Rent Controller, Tiruvarur, Ramadoss claimed to have purchased the property from one Ramanathan Chettiar of Devakottai along with some other items of property under a sale deed, dated. 7. 3. 1980, a registration copy whereof was filed before the Rent Controller marked as Ex. A-1. He had also traced the title of his vendor Ramanathan to the properties conveyed to him under Ex. A-1. THE prayer for eviction was founded on an allegation that the petitioner herein, Packiriswamy, was a tenant of the superstructure on the property from the vendor Ramanathan ever since the year 1970, on a monthly rent of Rs. 10 and that the rent was being paid to the said Ramanathan until 1975, whereafter packiriswamy is stated to have stopped paying the same. It was also alleged that a notice, demanding possession was issued to Packiriswamy on 22. 1. 1986. The petitioner herein by way of his defence, has set out in his counter-affidavit as follows: ' Ramadoss is not owner of either the superstructure or the site. Equally so, the alleged vendor of Ramadoss was not the owner of the superstructure or the site of the building. The alleged tenancy of Packiriswamy stated to have commenced in 1970 under Ramanathan Chettiar on an alleged monthly rent of Rs. 10 is also not true. The building in fact belongs only to the respondent in the said R. C. O. P, packiriswamy. The sale deed taken by Ramadoss also is not enforceable.' Before the Rent Controller, Exs. A-1 to A-27 were marked on the side of Ramadoss and Exs. R-1 to R-26 were marked on the side of the petitioner herein. Ramadoss examined himself as P. W. 1, and Ramanathan chettiar examined himself as P. W. 2. The revision petitioner herein examined himself as P. W. 1. The Rent Controller granted the prayer of Ramadoss on 30. 10. 1989 and an appeal therefrom in R. C. A. No. 37 of 1989 filed Packiriswamy was dismissed on 30. 10. 1989 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, nagapattinam. The instant revision petition has been filed against the order, confirming the order of the Rent Controller. Arguments were advanced by Mr. S. Gopalarathinam, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner and countered by Mr. R. Alagar learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. I have been taken through the entire pleadings and also of all the documents filed in the form of typed sets.
(3.) WHEN one looks into the sale deed, dated 7th March, 1980 under which Ramadoss claim. , ownership of the building under consideration, it is found that door No. 25b-1 is not among the properties conveyed thereunder. On the other hand, it is to be found that only door nos. 23, 24, 24-A, 25, 25-A, 25-A1 and 25-A2 are listed in the schedule to the document as properties conveyed thereunder. (13th sheet ). Another noteworthy feature of Ex A-1 is that in the 6th sheet thereof, only the names of 1 kuppuswamy Naicker, 2. Kuppuswamy Chettiar, 3 C. Sengammal and 4. Mohideen are found set out as tenants to whom the building standing on the property conveyed had been let out on rent. WHEN Ramadoss gave his evidence before the Rent controller as P. W. 1, he did not furnish any explanation about door No. 25-Bl, not being found among the properties conveyed to him under the original of ex. A-1. But in his cross examination he admitted that the premises bearing door no. 25-B 1 was not shown in Ex. A-1. He also admitted that the name of packiriswamy was not shown in Ex. A-1. However, he did make the claim that packiriswamy was a tenant under Ramanathan Chettiar on a monthly rent of Rs. 10. No explanation was given or attempted by P. W. 1 to this strange feature of the sale deed, viz. , non-inclusion of door No. 25-B1 and of the name of the revision petitioner herein. The vendor of Ramadoss under Ex. A-1 gave evidence in the case as P. W. 2. In the course of his chief-examination, he stated as follows: ' The petition property's door number is 25-A-3. . . .' At the time of my sale, door number of petition property was changed to 25-B1. Now it is 25-B1. Earlier it was 25-A-3. . . . . . . Sub Registrar objected for my selling the property as assessment to tax was in the name of Packiriswamy. Due to that it was not written in the sale deed. I had taken possession through court and was enjoying all the superstructure in 26,974 sq. ft. I sold to the petitioner all that was there. In 1970, I build the petition property and let it to Packirisamy on a monthly rent of Rs. 10. . . .' In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not take a lease deed from Packirisamy and that he had taken lease deeds from the tenants in the other properties. I have looked at Ex. A-2, the sale certificate issued by the District Munsif, Thiruvarur in E. P. No. 482 of 1934 in S. C. No. 75 of 1931 in favour of Ramanathan Chettiar, the father of the vendor to Ramadoss. The municipal door numbers 19 to 25 could be noticed in the same for the properties sold thereunder. Mr. S. Gopalaratnam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Packirisamy contended in the first place that the respondent in this civil revision petition, Ramadoss cannot claim to have become the owner of the property involved in these proceedings, which bears door No. 25-B-1 that a petition by him seeking eviction of Packiriswamy therefrom cannot be maintained. He also contended that the alleged leasing of the property to Packiriswamy by the vendor of Ramadoss had not been made out. Learned Senior Counsel also drew my attention to the evidence of the vendor ramanathan that while he had taken lease deeds from his other tenants, he had not taken one from Packiriswamy and contended that Ramanathan's claim to have granted a lease to Packiriswamy was obviously an untrue one. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that there was no evidence placed before the Rent Controller to corroborate the evidence of the vendor, which continued to remain only his mere ipso dixit. ;