V S DEVADOSS Vs. S VELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These civil revision petitions. at the instance of the landlords. are directed against the common order (if the Appellate Authority (11 Judge. Court of Small Causes). Madras in R. C. As. 66 and 67 of 1992. arising out of M. Ps. 361 and 256 of 1980 respectively In H.R.C. 3643 of 1979 on the file of the Rent Controller (XII Judge. Court of Small Causes). Madras. In that proceeding. the landlord prayed for an order of eviction against the respondent in these civil revision petitions and one Rajanaam under S. 10(3)(a)(iii) (wrongly stated as S. 10(3)(a)6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 18 of 1960 as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner crafted that he is the landlord in res0ect of the premises bearing old door No. 21 new door No. 30 Millers Road, and that the respondent was a tenant in modulation thereof. the tenancy being for non-residential pogroms of carrying on a business under the name and style of 'Sivasakthi Unavu Vidhuthi'. The petitioner stated that- he was carrying on his business in, a rented building at door. NO. 10/31. New door No. 86 Millers Road. having a modern at Nos. 34. 42 and 44. Millers St.. Kilvauk. Madras. and that he did not own any building of his own. The further case of the petitioner was that he required this treatises in the occupation of the respondent for his own use and occupation and the respondent through one Soundararafan and the respondent. though agreed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises. did not do so. The name of Rajarmam, according to the petitioner. was inserted in the sale tax register as proprietor with a view. to create difficulties and he was also imp leaded as second respondent in the application for eviction so that any order passed may be binding on him as well,

(2.) In the counter-statement filed by the respondent. he contended that the site over which the building stood belonged to eased out the site in 1926 to we Lakshmi Ammal. who out up a superstructure and thereafter settled the Property in favour of one Karnalammal. There after. Kamalammal continued to be the tenant under the Mutt and on 7th May 1979. Kamalammal sold the superstructure with the leasehold to the petitioner. The respondent ;dated that the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner was not valid in law as Kamalammal had no right to transfer the leasehold right. The further contention of the respondent was that on con-dria to know that the Mutt was the owner of the site. he so approached the Mutt with a view to secure a sale of the site and 'paid an advance towards the same. The respondent thus attempted to raise a cloud over the title of the Petitioner with reference to the Property in his occupation. In an additional co unter filed by the respondent he pleaded that the assignment of . the rights of a tenant in favour of the petitioner was invalid in law under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act and the Petitioner did not Oet any right or title as a landlord. Besides. the respondent out forth a plea that S. 10(3)(a)(I) of the Act had no application and the non-Davinent of the court-fee'in so far as the relief of eviction prayed for against Raiangam was concerned would be fatal to the maintainability of the application -for eviction. Certain other defences were also raised by the respondent which need not be adverted to in extenso for the purpose of these civil revision Petitions. Suffice it to say that Raianeam. Who was irribleaded as the second respondent in H.R.C, 3643 of 1979 also raised the Plea that he is only the brother-in-law of the respondent herein. that he was managing the hotel abd assisting the respondent that there was no sublease in his favour. that he is aji unnecessary party to the application for eviction and that the application for eviction should therefore be dismissed. In the reply filed by the Petitioner. he stated that the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between the Petitioner and the respondent as shown by certain prior proceedings as well and that. the denial of title of the petitioner by the respondent was, not at all bona fide.

(3.) In M.P 361 of 1981 in H.R.C. 3643 of 1979. the Petitioner applied under S. 11 (4) of the Act praying for direction to the respondent to Day or deposit the arrears of rent and for the stoppage at all further proceedings on his failure to do go. as according to the petitioner. the respondent-tvilant was in arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 11400. That an resisted by the respondent on more or less the same ground as in the main application for eviction and it was stated that the petitioner was not the landlord and. therefore. no question of any deposit or payment would arise, The respondent in his turn filed M. R 256 of 1980 In H. R. C. 3643 of 1979 Porting to be one under Section 10(1) of the Act. Praying for the holding of a preliminary enquiry regarding the respondent's bonafide denial of the title of tile petitioner and for recording a finding to that effect before entering,upon the merits oH. R. C. 3643 of 1979. That application was opposed by the Petitioner herein. who reiterated that there was no auction of any preliminary enquiry at all relating to the bona fides of the denial title especially when the petitioner was the owner of the superstructure and the respondent was a tenant thereof and the relationship of landlord and tenant continued to exist between the parties.