Madras High Court
S.Neela Megam vs )1.Tmt.Sugantha on 15 November, 2012
Author: R.S.Ramanathan
Bench: R.S.Ramanathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.11.2012
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.S.Ramanathan
C.R.P(NPD)No.1262 of 2009
and
M.P.No.1 of 2009
M.P.No.1 of 2010
M.P.Nos.1& 2 of 2011
1.S.Neela Megam
2.Gnanam
3.Panchatsaram
4.Durai ... petitioners
Vs.
1)1.Tmt.Sugantha
2)G.Moses (deceased)
3)G.David
4)G.Daniel
5)Tmt.Jesi
6)G.Simson
7)G.Samuel
8)Tmt.Marimalar
9)G.Yosuva
10)Vijaya
11)Beaulaha
12)Rosalin
13)Johnson
14)Arunraj
(R-10 to R-14, are impleaded as legal
representatives of the deceased/R-2,
as per order, dated 19.09.2006 in
M.P.No.862 of 2006)
... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, against the judgment and decree, dated 13.3.2009, passed in R.C.A.No.571 of 2001, on the file of the VII Judge/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in confirming the order and decree, dated 26.6.2001, passed in R.C.O.P.No.280 of 1998, on the file of the XIII Judge/Rent Controller, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.P.Wilson
Senior Counsel
For Respondents : Mr.T.V.Ramanujan
Senior Counsel for
Ms.K.M.Valsala
O R D E R
The tenants are the petitioners herein. The respondents filed a Petition in R.C.O.P.No.280 of 1998, against the petitioners for eviction, on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. The said Petition was ordered and the Appeal filed in R.C.A.No.571 of 2001 was dismissed, confirming the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.280 of 1998. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
2. The respondents filed a Petition for eviction stating that they are the absolute owners of the petition mentioned property and the petitioners are the tenants under them and the monthly rent payable by each petitioner is Rs.100/- and the tenancy is according to the English Calendar month. As the petitioners committed default in the payment of rent, the Petition was filed for eviction.
3.The petitioners contested the eviction Petition, stating that they are the absolute owners of the superstructure and the land is a anadheenam land, belonging to the Government and the door number of the petition mentioned property was not 2/62, as claimed in the Petition and the respondents have no title over the petition mentioned property and the petition mentioned property is comprised in S.No.48/1 and even according to the respondents, they got title in respect of property in S.No.48/5 and they are in possession of the property for more than 50 years and are paying taxes and they never paid any rent to the respondents and there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioners and the respondents and they are enjoying the property, as absolute owners. Therefore, the Petition for eviction is not maintainable.
4. The learned Rent Controller held that the petitioners failed to prove that they are the owners of the petition mentioned property and the respondents proved title to the property and they also issued notice-Ex.P.3 stating that they are the owners of the petition mentioned property and the petitioners are their tenants and directed the petitioners not to create false or fabricated documents by committing forgery claiming rights as owners of the petition mentioned property. Though notice was received, no reply was sent and Ex.P.6 was sent to the correct address of the petitioners and that was refused and in Ex.P.6, it was specifically mentioned that the tenants committed default in the payment of rent from July, 1995, and therefore, the respondents proved their title to the petition mentioned property and the petitioners failed to prove the title and they are tenants under the respondents and they committed wilful default in the payment of rent and ordered eviction.
5. Challenging the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the petitioners/tenants preferred an Appeal, viz., R.C.A.No.571 of 2001. In the Appeal, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.3759 of 2004, were marked as Exs.P.10 & 11 and the order, dated 11.12.2008, passed by this Court in C.R.P.(NPD)No.4106 of 2008, was marked as Ex.P12. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller and confirmed the order of eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
6. Mr.P.Wilson, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the Authorities below, without properly appreciating whether there exist a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, erred in ordering eviction of the petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners had filed M.P.No.1 of 2011, to receive additional documents and those documents were obtained by the petitioners by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act and those documents were not available, when the Petition for eviction was contested before the learned Rent Controller and those documents would prove that the respondents are not the owners of the petition mentioned property.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners elaborated his arguments by saying that the fulcrum of the case of the petitioners is that, originally, the petition mentioned property, which is of a larger extent was purchased by five persons, viz., 1)Mr.Perumal, 2)Mr.Dharmalingam, 3)Mr.Munuswamy, 4)Mr.Kuppathan and 5)Mr.Chinnaswamy of Koyambedu Village, under a sale deed, dated 10.11.1930, registered as documents No.1773 of 1930, in the Sub-Registrar Office, Saidapet, and each one of them was having 1/5 share and the legal representatives of those five persons were enjoying 1 acre and 65 cents of land comprised in S.No.48/5 and they effected partition, by which, one Mr.Gnanamuthu, the husband of the first respondent was allotted 66 cents, out of 1 acre and 65 cents of land comprised in old S.No.48/5 and the petition mentioned property is situate in S.No.48/1 and the suit filed by the first petitioner in O.S.No.3759 of 2004, for declaration that he is the owner of the petition mentioned property was dismissed on the basis of the forged certificates produced by the respondents, as if, the property in S.No.48/5 is correlated to the property in S.No.48/1 and the petitioners, now, got a letter from the Information Officer in the Office of the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai 31, stating that the documents relied upon by the respondents herein, viz., the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, stating S.No.48/5 has been converted into 48/1, was not issued by the said Office and that document was dated 19.11.2010, and hence, those documents could not have been produced before the Authorities below and the letter issued by the Information Officer, Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Egmore, would prove that the respondents are not the owners of the petition mentioned property and hence, they are not entitled to the order of eviction.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that, even assuming that the respondents are the owners of the property, in the absence of any proof that there exist the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the respondents are not entitled to the order of eviction. Moreover, the learned Rent Controller did not give any finding regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and no evidence was let in by the respondents to prove the said relationship. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority also did not consider that issue properly and therefore, even assuming that the respondents are the owners of the petition mentioned property, in the absence of any proof of relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondents, the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable and the respondents have to file the suit for recovery of possession. Hence, the order of eviction is liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, Mr.T.V.Ramanujan, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that, it is too late for the petitioners to contend that the respondents are not the owners of the property and title of the respondents was declared in O.S.No.3759 of 2004, and that has become final and even one of the tenants, by name Malika, filed O.S.No.5322 of 2001, against the respondents herein stating that the respondents are not the owners and she is the owner of the suit property. The Trial Court in and by its judgment, dated 11.03.2005, dismissed that suit, holding that the respondents are the owners of the suit property. The said judgment and decree was also confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court in First Appeal, viz., A.S.No.395 of 2005, and the same was also affirmed by this Court in S.A.No.1099 of 2007. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the respondents proved that they are the owners of the petition mentioned property and they are entitled to file Petition for eviction.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents further submitted that, once the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of the property was negatived and the respondents also filed documents to prove that they are the owners of the superstructure and the petitioners were paying the rent till June, 1995 and thereafter, they committed default and even during the pendency of the Appeal proceedings, the petitioners failed to pay the rent is accepted, eviction has to follow. Further, an order was passed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, directing the petitioners to vacate and handover vacant possession of the property for non-payment of rent, Challenging the same, the petitioners filed C.R.P.(NPD)No.4106 of 2008, and this Court, confirmed the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. Nevertheless, this Court granted time to the petitioners to pay the entire arrears of rent. The first petitioner also paid the amount and therefore, it is not open to the petitioners now to contend that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
11. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the first petitioner has not paid the rent from December, 2008 and the petitioners 2,3 and 4 failed to pay the rent from July, 1995. Hence, without paying the rent, they are not entitled to contest the proceedings. Therefore, the order or eviction, passed by the Courts below has to be confirmed. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the respondents also filed M.P.No.2 of 2011, to receive additional documents and those documents are i) the sale deed, executed in favour of the respondents' ancestor, ii) the order passed in W.P.No.15328 of 1995, iii) the proceedings of the District Collector, iv) the plaint filed in O.S.No.3759 of 2004, v) the judgment rendered in O.S.No.5322 of 2001, and vi) the judgment rendered in S.A.No.1099 of 2007.
12. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents further submitted that, though the petitioners have got a letter from the Information Officer in the Office of the Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai 31, the respondents also applied to the Information Officer, and by letter, dated 12.09.2011, they are informed that the records prior to the year 1999 were destroyed and they are unable to give the particulars regarding the documents issued prior to the year, 1999. Hence, the letter issued by the Information Officer, produced by the petitioners that no such records, regarding the conversion of S.No.48/5 into 48/1 was issued by the Office, cannot be accepted, having regard to the letter, dated 12.09.2011, obtained by the respondents, issued by the same office. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that, irrespective of the letter, which is disputed and marked as Ex.P.8, having regard to the proceedings of the Collector issued in favour of the respondents, it cannot be now challenged that the respondents are not owners of the property.
13. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, therefore, submitted that as the petitioners committed default in the payment of rent and when the Civil Court held that the petitioners are not the owners of the property, and the respondents are the owners, and when the respondents proved the relationship of landlord and tenant, the order of eviction passed by the Courts below has to be sustained.
14. Considering the affidavits filed in support of M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011, respectively and considering the nature of documents produced in those Petitions, in my opinion, those documents are necessary to decide the issue and proper explanations were given for the non-production of those documents before the Courts below and therefore, the Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 1 and 2 of 2011, are allowed.
15. In M.P.No.1 of 2011, two documents are filed and the letter of the third petitioner, dated 27.10.2010, is marked as Ex.R.9 and the letter, dated 19.11.2010, issued by the Information Officer, vide Na.Ka.No.E4/31237/2010, is marked as Ex.R10.
16. In M.P.No.2 of 2011, the respondents filed 18 documents and some of them were already marked before the Rent Control proceedings and remaining documents are marked as Exs.P.13 to P.24, which are as follows:-
P.13. 10.11.1930 :Sale deed in favour of the landlords' ancestor.
P.14. 21.07.2000 : Order in W.P.No.15328 of 1995.
P.15. 30.08.2001: Proceedings of the Deputy Secretary to Government.
P.16. 10.03.2004 :Proceedings of the District Collector.
P.17 17.06.2004 : Patta issued in favour of respondents.
P.18 30.07.2004 : Copy of the plaint in O.S.No.3759 of 2004. (filed by the petitioners) P.19 18.11.2004: Copy of written statement in O.S.No.3759 of 2004.
P.20 11.03.2005 : Judgment in O.S.No.5322 of 2001( Declaration suit filed by the adjacent tenant Mrs.Malliga).
P.21 28.12.2005 :Judgment in A.S.No.395 of 2005 (Appeal against O.S.No.5322 of 2001).
P.22 06.04.2009: Judgment in S.A.No.1099 of 2007.
P.23 24.08.2011: Application under RTI Act by landlords .
P.24 12.09.2011 : Reply from Public Information Officer to landlords.
17. The main contention of Mr.P.Wilson, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the landlords/respondents were able to get decree in their favour in O.S.No.3759 of 2004, on the basis of the certificate, dated 28.04.1999, issued by the Tahsildar stating that S.No.48/5 is changed to S.No.48/1 and on that basis, the title of the respondents was upheld in O.S.No.3759 of 2004, and by reason of the letter, dated 19.11.2010, issued by the Information Officer in the office of Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, marked as Ex.R.10, in this Civil Revision Petition, it is made clear that no such document was issued by the said Office and hence, the basis on which the respondents case was built had fallen and the documents are forged documents and therefore, it cannot be stated that the respondents proved that they are the owners of the suit property and when the respondents are not the owners, they are not entitled to file the Petition for eviction.
18. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that eventhough, the suit filed by the first petitioner in O.S.No.3759 of 2004, was dismissed, the same was dismissed on the basis of the forged documents, dated 28.04.1999, which was marked as Ex.B3 in that suit and the same was also marked as Ex.P.8 in the rent control proceedings and when the documents are proved to be concocted, the decree cannot be relied upon by the respondents to sustain their case that they are the owners of the properties. Therefore, they are not entitled to the order of eviction.
19. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the order passed in C.R.P.(NPD)No.4106 of 2008 cannot be relied, as the amount was paid, without prejudice to the contention of the petitioners and hence, that would not prove that the respondents have made out a case and proved relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that even assuming that the respondents are the landlords, in the absence of any proof that the petitioners are the tenants under them, they are not entitled to the relief of eviction.
20. On the other hand, Mr.T.V.Ramanujan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that the letter, dated 19.11.2010, marked as Ex.R10, cannot be believed, having regard to the letter, dated 12.09.2011, issued by the same office stating that the documents were destroyed and therefore, they are not in a position to give any information regarding the certificate issued, prior to the year 1999. The Senior Counsel further submitted that the respondents produced the proceedings of the District Collector granting patta to the respondents and the same has been marked as Ex.P.16, and the Collector has accepted that the respondents' predecessors in title were the owners of the property, under the sale deed, dated 10.11.1930, and after the partition, dated 16.08.1993, viz., Ex.P.2, the first respondent's husband was allotted the petition mentioned property, and therefore, even assuming that the certificate given by the Tahsildar, dated 28.04.1999, which is disputed and questioned by the petitioners, cannot be relied upon, the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 10.03.2004, viz., Ex.P.16 would prove that the respondents are the owners of the property and hence, it cannot be contended that the respondents are not the owners.
21.I have gone through the additional documents filed by the petitioners as well as the respondents. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that even after excluding the certificate-Ex.P.8, dated 28.04.1999, stating that S.No.48/5 has changed into 48/1, the proceedings of the District Collector make it clear that the respondents are the owners of the property in S.No.48/1. In that order, the District Collector relied upon the documents, dated 10.11.1930, and the partition deed, dated 16.08.1993, viz., Ex.P.2, holding that the respondents are entitled to the grant of patta and the lands are not anadheenam land, belonging to the Government and patta was granted to the respondents.
22. Further, in O.S.No.3759 of 2004, the title of the respondents was confirmed and the Trial Court also held that the petitioners failed to prove the title to the suit property and in O.S.No.5322 of 2001, filed by another tenant, by name Malika, both the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court confirmed that the tenant has no title over the suit property, and the respondents are the owners of the property and the same was also affirmed by this Court in S.A.No.1099 of 2007, marked as Ex.P.22.
23. Therefore, having regard to the proceedings of the District Collector-Ex.P.16, and the judgment passed in O.S.No.3759 of 2004, Ex.P.10 and the judgment in S.A.No.1099 of 2007/Ex.P.22, it has been proved by the respondents that they are the owners of the petition mentioned property and the petitioners have not proved their title to the property. Insofar as relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned, both the Courts below concurrently held that the petitioners failed to pay the rent from July, 1995 and as a matter of fact, during the first appeal, a conditional order was passed, directing the tenants to pay the rent and as the tenants failed to pay the rent, order was passed and thereafter, the first petitioner filed C.R.P.(NPD)No.4106 of 2008 and the Revision Petition was allowed and the first petitioner was directed to pay the arrears of rent and he also paid the arrears of rent and thereafter, the first petitioner failed to pay the rent from December, 2008, and the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 failed to pay the rent from July, 1995 and having regard to the order passed in C.R.P.(NPD)No.4106 of 2008 and having regard to the fact that the respondents have proved their title to the suit property, and the petitioners are in possession of the same, the Courts below rightly held that they are the tenants under the respondents and I also concurr with the findings of the Courts below.
24. Therefore, I hold that the respondents have proved the relationship of landlord and tenant and admittedly, the tenants/petitioners have not paid the rent from July, 1995 and only the first petitioner had paid the rent from July, 1995, to November, 2008 and the other petitioners have not paid the rent from July 1995 and their conduct is nothing but, wilful. Hence, the Courts below have rightly ordered eviction. Hence, the judgment and order passed by the Courts below does not suffer any infirmity to be interfered with in this Civil Revision Petition.
25. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 are closed and M.P.Nos.1& 2 of 2011 are allowed.
Index : yes/no 15.11.2012 Internet : yes/no List of Exhibits on the side of the petitioners:- Ex.R.9 27.10.2010 : Application to Information Officer, enclosing P.8 Ex.R.10 19.11.2010 : Reply from Information Officer List of Exhibits on the side of the Respondents:- Ex.P.13. 10.11.1930 :Sale deed in favour of the landlords ancestor Ex.P.14 16.08.1983 : Partition Deed in favour of first Respondent's husband Gnanamuthu Ex.P.15 28.04.1999 : Correlation Certificate issued by Tahsildar Ex.P.16 21.07.2000 : Order in W.P.No.15328 of 1995 Ex.P.17 30.08.2001 : Proceedings of the Deputy Secretary to Government Ex.P.18 10.03.2004 :Proceedings of the District Collector Ex.P.19 17.06.2004 : Patta issued in favour of respondents Ex.P.20 30.07.2004 : Copy of plaint in O.S.No.3759 of 2004, (filed by the petitioners) Ex.P.21 18.11.2004 : Copy of written statement in O.S.No.3759 of 2004 Ex.P.22 11.03.2005: Judgment in O.S.No.5322 of 2001 Declaration suit filed by the adjacent tenant Mrs.Malliga) List of Exhibits on the side of the Respondents:- Ex.P.23 28.12.2005 : Judgment in A.S.No.395 of 2005 ( Appeal against O.S.No.5322 of 2001) Ex.P.2412 12.2007 : Judgment in O.S.No.3759 of 2004 Ex.P.25 12.12.2007 : Decree in O.S.No.3759 of 2004 Ex.P.26 06.04.2009 : Judgment in S.A.No.1099 of 2007 against Application No.5395/05 filed by adjacent tenant Ex.P.27 27.10.2010 : Application under RTI Act by tenants Ex.P.28 19.11.2010 : Reply from Public Information Officer to tenants Ex.P.29 24.08.2011: Application under RTI Act by landlords Ex.P.30 12.09.2011 : Reply from Public Information Officer to landlords 15-11-2012 To 1.The VII Judge/Rent Control Appellate Authority, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2.The XIII Judge/Rent Controller, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. R.S.Ramanathan, J., sd Pre-delivery order in C.R.P(NPD)No.1262 of 2009 .11.2012