Madras High Court
R.M.Rajendran vs S.Muhamed Ali on 12 January, 2022
Author: P.T.Asha
Bench: P.T.Asha
C.R.P.(MD)No.778 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :12.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P(MD)No.778 of 2021 &
CMP(MD)Nos.6098 of 2021 & 4237 of 2021
R.M.Rajendran ... Petitioner
Vs.
S.Muhamed Ali ... Respondent
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
04.03.2021 in RCA.No.28/2017 on the file of the Principal Sub Court
(Rent Control Appellate Authority), Tiruchirappalli confirming the fair
and decreetal order dated 08.03.2017 in RCOP.No.17/2013 on the file of
the Rent Controller (III Additional District Munsif), Tiruchirappalli.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vinayak
For Respondent : Mr.T.A.Punithan
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.778 of 2021
ORDER
The tenant who has suffered concurrent orders of eviction has filed this Civil Revision Petition.
2. The facts in brief are as follows.
2.1. The landlord had filed RCOP.No.17/2013 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif / Rent Controller, Thiruchirappalli for eviction on the ground of wilful default and owner's occupation. The landlord had contended that he has purchased the demised premises in the month of January 2010. When he had purchased the property, there were already persons in possession of the property on the basis of othi from the previous landlord. Those othidhars have assured the landlord that they would vacate the premises by April 2010 and believing this assurance, he had entered into lease with the tenant in June 2010 for a period of two years. The oral agreement to this effect was entered into in the last week of January 2010. The othidhars had vacated the premises in May 2010 and from then on, the tenant had been in possession of the property as a lessee. The landlord would submit that on some occasions, Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.778 of 2021 the tenant would keep the door locked and not put the premises to use. The landlord would also contend that the tenant was running a women hostel namely Minerva Hostel without due licence. The landlord had time and again cautioned the tenant and called upon him to vacate the premises, however, the tenant had refused to do so. As per the oral agreement, the tenant has to hand over the possession by 2012, however, he had not only failed to deliver the vacant possession, but also stopped paying the monthly rents. The landlord had also stated that he had decided to return back to India and therefore, he requires the premises for his own occupation, that he would reside in the premises and do some work. Hence, he sought for eviction.
2.2. The tenant had filed a counter inter alia contending that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between them. He would further submit that one Liyakath Ali, the father-in-law of the respondent herein had received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 10.05.2010 in the presence of witnesses and a lease advance receipt was issued to him. Utilising the said amount, the earlier occupants were vacated and he had never paid Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.778 of 2021 any rent to the respondent herein or his father-in-law / Liyakath Ali and therefore, there is no question of wilful default. He would submit that the respondent herein had not come to Court with clean hands. The respondent herein is only a name lender of his father-in-law and was fully aware that the petitioner herein intends to use the petition property for running ladies hostel.
2.3. The learned Rent Controller by order dated 08.03.2017 had allowed the petition on both the grounds and ordered eviction. The Rent Controller had held that the tenant had admitted that the petition mentioned property belongs to the landlord and that the father-in-law is no way connected with the building. However, on 13.02.2017, the tenant had taken a stand in his deposition that Liyakath Ali is the owner of the demised premises. Challenging the said order, the tenant had filed RCA.No.28/2017 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. The learned Judge had also confirmed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. It is challenging these concurrent orders that the revision petitioner / tenant is before this Court. Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.778 of 2021
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner / tenant would strenuously contend that the petitioner had come into possession of the property only as an othidhar under the landlord's father-in-law Liyakath Ali. He had paid an othi amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. This amount has been utilised to settle the other othidhars and to take vacant possession of the property. He would submit that Ex.R1 is a receipt endorsing the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- as othi. He would further submit that this amount has been utilized to pay off other othidhars, which is clear from perusal of Exs.R2 to R8. He would submit that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Both the Courts below has lost sight of this fact. He would also rely on the deposition of the landlord, PW1, in which he had stated as follows.
"kDbrhj;ij ehd; vjph; kDjhuUf;F thliff;F
tpltpy;iy vd;whYk; vjph; kDjhuUf;F ypahfj;
mypjhd; xj;jpf;F bfhLj;jhh; vd;Wk; thlif
fl;Lg;ghl;Lr;rl;lk; vdf;F bghUe;jhJ vd;Wk;
Mfnt ,e;j kDit js;Sgo bra;antz;Lk; vd;W
brhd;dhy; rhpjhd;"
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)No.778 of 2021
Therefore, in the light of this categoric admission, he would submit that the revision petitioner / tenant has proved that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties.
4. Heard the counsel on either sides and perused the records.
5. A perusal of Ex.R1 would clearly show the nature of possession of the revision petitioner is that of a tenant in respect of the demised premises. In Ex.R1, it has been clearly and categorically stated that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been received from the tenant by Liyakath Ali towards lease advance and the document is titled lease advance receipt. The document has been typed out in a printed form, filled up by the revision petitioner / tenant and it has been clearly styled as a lease advance receipt. The document would also show that the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been received by the cheques as well as cash. Exs.R2 to R8 have been filed by the tenant to prove the payments. The revision petitioner / tenant's case is that the original othidhars have been settled only from and out of Rs.5,00,000/- paid by him. However, the records Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.778 of 2021 would show that this amount has been received from the month of April 2010 onwards, whereas, the othidhars had left the property even in the month of January 2010. Therefore, the contention that it was the lease advance paid by the revision petitioner / tenant which has gone into re- paying the othidhars appears to be a stray statement made in the evidence, particularly, when the Court is unable to verify the the nature of the context, in which the statement had been made. Taking into account Ex.R1 lease advance receipt, it is clear that the petitioner had entered possession only as a lessee. Once it is proved that the revision petitioner is a tenant and that the landlord contends that there is arrears of rent, it is for the revision petitioner / tenant to prove that there are no arrears. Such a proof is not forthcoming from the revision petitioner / tenant. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly come to a conclusion that the revision petitioner / tenant is in arrears and I do not intend to set aside the findings and orders of the Courts Authorities below. Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.778 of 2021 P.T.ASHA, J.
mbi
6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
12.01.2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No mbi To
1.The Principal Sub Court Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruchirappalli
2.The Rent Controller III Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirappalli C.R.P(MD)No.778 of 2021 Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis