Madras High Court
Abdul Khader vs Saravana Sankar on 8 June, 2021
C.R.P(MD).No. 481 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 08.04.2021
Pronounced on : 08.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
C.R.P(PD)(MD).No.481 of 2019
Abdul Khader : Petitioner / Petitioner / Respondent
Vs.
Saravana Sankar : Respondent / Respondent / Petitioner
PRAYER:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to call for the records and set aside the fair and
executable order dated 14.09.2018 in I.A.No.80 of 2018 in HRCOP.No..11
of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Court,
Dindigul.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Vairava Sundaram
For Respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthil
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.80 of 2018 in HRCOP.No.11 of 2013, dated 14.09.2018 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif/ Rent Controller, Dindigul, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 1/8 C.R.P(MD).No. 481 of 2019 dismissing the petition filed under Order 12 Rule 2 CPC, seeking permission to mark the agreement i.e., Varthamanam dated 01.09.2015.
2.The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent/landlord has filed the petition in HRCOP.No.11 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif/ Rent Controller, Dindigul, seeking eviction on the ground of own use and occupation under Section 10 3(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
3.For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after will be referred as per their ranking/status before the Rent Controller.
4.It is not in dispute that the property, subject matter of the Rent Control Petition was leased out to the respondent/tenant by the petitioner/landlord on 08.12.2013 for a period of 9 years vide registered lease deed and that the landlord has received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance at the inception of the tenancy. It is also not in dispute that the tenant has been running a jewellery in the name and style of Arra jewellery in the demised building. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner/landlord side evidence was already completed and that when the respondent/tenant side evidence was in progress, the above petition came to be filed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/8 C.R.P(MD).No. 481 of 2019
5.The case of the respondent is that he paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as further advance and the same was received by the petitioner/landlord by executing a Varthamanam; that during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, the tenant had paid a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and the landlord has received the same and executed an unregistered agreement i.e., Varthamanam on 01.09.2015, agreeing to extend the tenancy for a further period of 9 years; that when the respondent was attempting to exhibit the agreement dated 01.09.2015, the same was opposed by the petitioner/landlord and that therefore, the tenant was forced to file the above application, now under consideration.
6.It is not in dispute that the respondent has filed an application in I.A.No.17 of 2017 for reception of additional statement of objections based on the alleged varthamanam document, that after enquiry, the learned Rent Controller has passed an order on 11.09.2019, dismissing the said petition. The learned Rent Controller, in the impugned order, has specifically observed that since it was already decided in I.A.No.17 of 2017, that the unregistered agreement dated 01.09.2015 was not at all necessary to decide the eviction application, the tenant is not entitled to seek that the said document is to be marked, as the order passed in I.A.No.17 of 2017 was not at all challenged.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/8 C.R.P(MD).No. 481 of 2019
7.No doubt, in the grounds of revision, though the tenant has stated that an appeal with condone delay application has been filed and the same is pending for consideration, he has not elaborated anything further. Even at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has not stated that any appeal or application to condone the delay in filing the appeal is pending for consideration before this Court. Since the learned Rent Controller has already refused permission for filing of any additional counter statement touching upon the unregistered agreement dated 01.09.2015, the said document cannot be admitted in evidence, as there was no pleading, admittedly. It is settled law that any amount of evidence without pleadings or any amount of pleadings without evidence are of no use.
8.More over, admittedly the trial of the case was commenced as early as on 15.04.2014 and according to the tenant, he had paid Rs. 6,00,000/- on 01.09.2015 and the landlord, after receiving the same, had executed the document, now under dispute, on that day itself. It is the further case of the tenant that the landlord had agreed to extend the tenancy for a further period of 9 years. If that be so, we can easily infer that both the tenant and the landlord had entered into a compromise and consequently, they have to close the pending eviction proceedings. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/8 C.R.P(MD).No. 481 of 2019
9.It is pertinent to mention that subsequently, the landlord has filed a petition in RCOP.No.21 of 2016 for fixation of fair rent on 19.08.2016 and the tenant has filed his counter statement on 19.12.2016. Admittedly, in the present case, the tenant has filed his chief examination affidavit in April 2018. Even assuming for arguments sake that the landlord after having executed the said agreement (Varthamanam) has failed to report the compromise before Rent controller, this Court is at loss to understand as to why the tenant has not taken any steps to report the compromise before the learned Rent Controller by producing the alleged document dated 01.09.2015. Admittedly, the tenant has not offered any reason or explanation for keeping quite for more than two years, since the alleged execution of agreement dated 01.09.2015.
11.No doubt, the document, now under dispute, is an unstamped and unregistered document. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the position of law is well settled that when an objection is raised during evidence taking stage, regarding the admissibility of any document or a portion of oral evidence, the trial Court can make a note of such objection and mark the document or record that portion of oral evidence subject to the such objections to be decided at the last stage in the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/8 C.R.P(MD).No. 481 of 2019 final judgment. But, it is pertinent to mention that such a course cannot be applied, if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document, as the same has to be decided before proceeding further.
12.As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the landlord, the tenant is attempting to mark the said document to show that the tenancy has been extended for a further period of 9 years and even if the tenant is permitted to pay the stamp duty with penalty, he is not entitled to rely on that document to prove the alleged extension of tenancy for further period of 9 years, as the said aspect cannot be considered as collateral purpose.
13.Admittedly, the HRCOP petition is pending from 2013 and already 7 years had lapsed. It is pertinent to mention that the proceedings under the Rent Control Act are summary in nature. On considering the entire facts and circumstances, this Court is of the clear view that the respondent/tenant has been attempting to protract the proceedings. Hence, the decision of the learned Rent Controller in dismissing the petition filed under Order 12 Rule 2 CPC, cannot be found fault with and consequently, this Court decides that the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Since the case is pending for more than https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6/8 C.R.P(MD).No. 481 of 2019 7 years, the learned Rent Controller is to be directed to dispose of the case within the time stipulated by this Court.
14.In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the order passed in I.A.No.80 of 2018 in HRCOP.No.11 of 2013, dated 14.09.2018 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif/ Rent Controller, Dindigul, is confirmed. The learned Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the case within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
08.06.2021 Index : Yes : No Internet : Yes : No das To
1.The Principal District Munsif/ Rent Controller, Dindigul.
Note:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 7/8 C.R.P(MD).No. 481 of 2019 K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
das C.R.P(PD)(MD).No.481 of 2019 08.06.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8/8