Madras High Court
P.Balamurugan vs Muthulakshmi on 1 January, 2020
C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2414 & 2415 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON: 20.03.2025
DELIVERED ON: 03.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2414 & 2415 of 2022
and CMP(MD).Nos.11675 & 11677 of 2022
P.Balamurugan ....Petitioner/Petitioner/Tenant
in both revisions
Vs
1.Muthulakshmi
2.K.Muthukumaran ....Respondents/Respondents/Landlords
in both revisions
PRAYER in CRP(MD).No.2414 of 2022: Civil Revision Case is filed
under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and
decreetal order passed by the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif,
Kovilpatti in I.A.No.14 of 2022 in RCOP.No.8 of 2017 and allow the
present revision.
PRAYER in CRP(MD).No.2415 of 2022: Civil Revision Case is filed
under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and
decreetal order passed by the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsif,
Kovilpatti in I.A.No.15 of 2022 in RCOP.No.9 of 2017 and allow the
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:41:44 pm )
C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2414 & 2415 of 2022
present revision.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Prabu
in both petitions
For Respondents :Mr.A.Srinivasan
in both petitions
COMMON ORDER
These revision petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed in I.A.No.14 of 2022 in RCOP.No. 8 of 2017 and I.A.No.15 of 2022 in RCOP.No.9 of 2017 on the file of the Rent Controller Cum District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.
(A) Factual Background:
2.These Rent Control Petitions have been filed by the landlord namely Muthulakshmi and Muthukumaran as against their tenant namely Balamurugan and to evict him from two non-residential building bearing Door No.119E and Door No.119F.
3.As per averments in the Rent Control Petitions, the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent and therefore, he is liable to be evicted. Both the Rent Control Petitions were filed in the month of July and August 2017.2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:41:44 pm ) C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2414 & 2415 of 2022
4.Pending Rent Control Proceedings, the landlord has sold the petition mentioned premises in both the Rent Control Petitions to third parties under a registered sale deed dated 01.01.2020. Therefore, the tenant had filed I.A.No.14 of 2022 and I.A.No.15 of 2022 under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C to reject the rent control petitions on the ground that the landlord has no locustandi to continue the eviction proceedings filed on the ground of wilful default after alienating the property to third parties.
5.The landlord has filed a counter contending that the judgments that are cited by the tenant are not applicable to the facts of this case. It was further contended that even though the landlords have alienated the properties to third parties, their right to conduct the case is never lost. It was further contended that the tenant has not paid arrears of rent either directly to the landlord or deposit the same before the Court. It was further contended that the application has been filed only with a malafide intention to stop the eviction proceedings.
6.The Rent Controller after considering the evidence on either side, has proceeded to dismiss the said applications relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2016 (3) CTC 211 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:41:44 pm ) C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2414 & 2415 of 2022 (Sharadamma Vs. Mohammed Pyrejan (D) through L.Rs. and another) wherein it is held that the landlord after having alienated the said suit schedule properties to third party, will not lose his right to conduct the case. When the tenant has admitted the landlord tenant relationship, merely because the landlord has alienated the property to third party, the right of landlord to continue the rent control proceedings is not lost.
7.Based upon the above said observations, the Rent Controller had dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C in both the rent control petitions. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petitions have been filed.
(B)Contentions of the counsels appearing on either side:
8.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners had relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2011-4-LW-891 (Alaudin and another Vs. A.Sathar) and contended that the eviction proceedings on the ground of wilful default cannot be continued after the property has been sold. The landlord would not have locustandi to continue the proceedings for eviction on the ground of own use and occupation. He had further relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1997 (1) MLJ 420(S.V.Perasamy and Sons By its....Vs.R.Senthil Kumar and others) 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:41:44 pm ) C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2414 & 2415 of 2022 wherein this Court has held that the landlord is not entitled to continue the proceedings of eviction after he had alienated the properties. The petitioner has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in CRP(MD).No.428 and 757 of 2014 ( Veluthai Vs.E.K.K.Shaiddu Mohammed (died) and others) dated 21.12.2018 wherein this Court has held that once the landlord tenant relationship ceases, a petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default cannot be continued by erstwhile landlord.
9.Per contra, the respondent herein had relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2025 (1) CTC 499 (Uma Vs K.Purushothaman) wherein the learned Single Judge has held that the eviction proceedings initiated by the erstwhile land owner can be continued by the subsequent purchaser and the law itself implies attornment of tenancy once there is a valid conveyance in favour of the subsequent purchaser. He had further relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2011-2-L.W-148 ( M/s.Sri Annapurna Sri Gowrishankar Hotels Pvt. Limited Vs. N.Andal & others) wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the eviction petition can be continued and prosecuted by a subsequent landlord even where the eviction is sought for on the ground of wilful default. He further relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1979 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:41:44 pm ) C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2414 & 2415 of 2022 MLJ 385 (Subbanna Vs. Seshagiri Rao and another) wherein it was held that the purchaser of the property in the course of rent control proceedings can be brought on record and he can continue the proceedings.
10.He further relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 7 SCC 321( Sheikh Noor and another Vs. Sheikh G.S.Ibrahim(dead) by Lrs). Hence, he prayed for sustaining the order passed by the trial Court in dismissing the revision petition.
11.Heard both sides and perused the material records. (C)Discussion:
12.The landlord has filed an eviction petition to evict the tenant from two shops on the ground of wilful default. There is no dispute with regard to the landlord and tenant relationship. Pending eviction proceedings, the landlord has sold both the shops to a third party on 01.01.2020. When the tenant had filed an application to reject the eviction petition, the Rent Controller had relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2016 (3) CTC 211 (Sharadamma Vs. Mohammed Pyrejan (D) through L.Rs. and another) and has proceeded to dismiss the said application.
6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:41:44 pm ) C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2414 & 2415 of 2022
13.A perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2016 (3) CTC 211 reveals that it is a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Pending first appeal, the plaintiff had gifted the property in favour of her daughter who in turn had sold the property to third parties. Invoking Order 22 Rule 10 of C.P.C, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the purchaser of the property would be entitled to continue the proceedings as an assignee of the property. .The present proceedings are not a civil suit, but a summary proceeding based upon the landlord tenant relationship. Unless the landlord has got a right to evict and seek possession, he cannot pursue the eviction proceedings.
14.The jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court is solely based upon existence/subsistence of jural relationship of landlord and tenant. In case of any bonafide dispute with regard to title, the Rent Control Court is mandated to relegate the parties to a civil suit. When the landlord has transferred the property in favour of a third party, pending rent control proceedings, admittedly the landlord is not the owner of the property.
15.Even after alienation, the landlord wold be entitled to claim rental arrears up to the date of sale. However, the said right can be 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:41:44 pm ) C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2414 & 2415 of 2022 exercised only by filing an independent civil suit. The purchaser of the property would be entitled to claim rental arrears for the period prior to the date of purchase, only if the same is assigned in his favour under the sale deed as contemplated under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act. If such right has not been assigned under the sale deed, the purchaser cannot seek eviction on the ground of wilful default.
16.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2003) 7 SCC 321( Sheikh Noor and another Vs. Sheikh G.S.Ibrahim(dead) by Lrs) in Paragraph No.18 has held as follows:
“18.In view of the cases referred to above, in our opinion, the correct position of law is that a transferee is not entitled to recover the arrears as rent for the property on transfer unless the right to recover the arrears is also transferred. If right to recover the arrears is assigned, then the transferee/ landlord can recover those arrears as rent and if not paid maintain a petition for eviction under the rent laws for those arrears as well. Since in this case we have found that there was an assignment of right to recover the arrears in favour of the respondent transferee he was entitled to recover the same as arrears of rent. If that period is taken into consideration then the tenant/ appellants were certainly in arrears of rent for more than six months and became liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute on the ground of 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:41:44 pm ) C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2414 & 2415 of 2022 default on their part in payment of rent for more than six months on the date of filing the suit.”
17.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (1994) 5 SCC 261 ( N.M.Engineer and others Vs. Narendra Singh Virdi and another) in Paragraph No.20 has held as follows:
“20. Therefore, whatever might have been due prior to deed of lease dated 8-6-1967, could not constitute arrears of rent. It was mere actionable claim. That being so, the notice does not satisfy the requirements of Section 12(3)(a), more so in this case, as stated above, the arrears at the rate of Rs. 87 had been deposited. It is not open to the appellant to call upon Section 12(3)(b). “
18.The said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed by our High Court in a judgment reported in (1997) 1 LW 527 (S.V.Periasamy & Sons by its partner and others Vs. R.Senthil Kumar and others) Paragraph No.19 of the judgment of our High Court is extracted as follows:
“19. In view of this settled position of law, the cause of action on the basis of which first respondent filed eviction petition no more survives. The cause of action is that the tenant committed wilful default in paying the rent. On that date, the first respondent was entitled to collect the amount as arrears of rent.9/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:41:44 pm ) C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2414 & 2415 of 2022 Once he ceased to be the landlord, he can recover the amount- only as a debt, and by the time eviction order was passed, he ceased to be a landlord. Right as landlord, which entitles to sue for eviction, is transferred to respondents 2 and 3. Under Exhibit A. 17, even that debt has not been assigned. Even if there is an assignment that will amount to only an actionable claim and will cease to be arrears of rent. For getting eviction the nature of the amount due from the tenant must be arrears of rent. The relationship of landlord and tenant ceases, and the previous landlord only becomes a creditor and the tenant becomes a debtor. The eviction petition on the ground of default in payment of rent thereafter cannot be continued either by the previous landlord, or by the purchaser on the basis of the same cause of action.”
19.In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 7 SCC 321 and (1994) 5 SCC 261, it is clear that the cause of action to a landlord to file an eviction petition on the ground of wilful default survives only as long as he continues to be the owner of the property. After alienation, the landlord tenant relationship ceases and the rental arrears becomes debt. Unless the said debt is assigned in favour of the purchaser, the purchaser would not be entitled to recover the said rental arrears. Even if there is an assignment, it is only an actionable claim at the 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:41:44 pm ) C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2414 & 2415 of 2022 hands of the purchaser and it is no longer an arrears of rent. Only if there is arrears of rent, either the original landlord or the purchaser would be able to prosecute or continue the eviction proceedings under the Rent Control Act. Therefore, it is clear that the relationship between the original landlord or the purchaser on one hand and the tenant on the other hand, is that of a creditor and debtor relationship. In such circumstances, either of them would not be in a position to initiate or continue the eviction proceedings which was filed on the ground of wilful default. The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents have not taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment reported in (2003) 7 SCC 321 and (1994) 5 SCC 261.
20. In the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents in 2025 (1) CTC 499, the learned Judge of this Court has arrived at a specific finding that despite the tenant having knowledge about the transfer of property, the tenant continued to commit wilful default even during the pendency of the proceedings and has not paid the rent to the new landlord.
11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:41:44 pm ) C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2414 & 2415 of 2022
21.A perusal of the sale deed dated 01.01.2020 executed by the landlord in favour of the third party reveals that the rental arrears have not been assigned in favour of the new landlord. In such circumstances, the question of new landlord getting himself impleaded in the pending eviction proceedings does not arise. However, if the tenant had committed default in payment of rent to the new landlord after the date of purchase by him, he is always entitled to initiate fresh eviction proceedings, if he is so advised.
22.The present rent control proceedings have been initiated alleging wilful default for the period between April 2014 to March 2015 which is prior to the date of alienation. In such circumstances, even the new landlord would not be in a position to continue the eviction proceedings in view of the categorical finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the rental arrears (even assigned) would only be an actionable claim at the hands of the purchaser. In such circumstances, it is clear that neither the original landlord nor the purchaser can continue the eviction proceedings on the ground of wilful default.
23. In view of the above said deliberations, the Rent Controller was not right in dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C 12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:41:44 pm ) C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2414 & 2415 of 2022 seeking termination of eviction proceedings filed by the quandum landlord. The orders impugned in the revision petitions are set aside and both the civil revision petitions stand allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
. 03.04.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
To
1.The District Munsif, Kovilpatti.
2.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:41:44 pm )
C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2414 & 2415 of 2022
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J
msa
C.R.P.(PD)(MD).Nos.2414 & 2415 of 2022
and CMP(MD).Nos.11675 & 11677 of 2022
03.04.2025
14/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/04/2025 04:41:44 pm )