Madras High Court
E. Venkata Naicker Trust, A Private ... vs Muthusamy Chettiar on 29 June, 1994
Equivalent citations: (1994)2MLJ447
Author: Pratap Singh
Bench: Pratap Singh
ORDER Pratap Singh, J.
1. This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment in R.C.A. No. 27 of 1985 on the file of Appellate Authority, Erode, in which the learned Appellate Authority had allowed the appeal and reversed the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 80 of 1982 on the file of Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Erode.
2. Short facts are : The revision petitioner/landlord had filed a petition for eviction against the respondent on the ground of act of waste. That claim was resisted by the respondent/tenant, who would contend that only vacant site was leased out to him and superstructure thereon was put up by the tenant, that the owner of the vacant site is a public trust and as such the landlord, as trustee, cannot file a petition for eviction under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and he had not committed any acts of waste. After enquiry, the learned Rent Controller had found all the points in favour of the landlord and had ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant had filed R.C.A. No. 27 of 1985 before the Appellate Authority and had succeeded. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Authority, the landlord has come forward with this civil revision petition.
3. Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that it is a private trust and not public trust and as such the finding of the Appellate Authority is wrong. He would further submit that denial of title of the landlord over the superstructure was mala fide and the finding contra is erroneous. He would add that there was no act of waste committed by the tenant. Inter alia he contended that when the Appellate Authority gives a finding that there was bona fide dispute with regard to title, the Appellate Authority ought not to have entered into a discussion with regard to the question whether the trust was a public trust or a private trust and ought not have given a finding thereon. Once the jurisdiction is not there, no finding need be given on other issues. I have heard Mr. G. Subramanian, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, on the above aspects.
4. I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned senior counsels. I shall first take up the question as to whether there was a bona fide dispute with regard to title of the building concerned in this petition. If there is a bona fide dispute with regard to title, as per proviso (1) to Section 10 of the Act, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil court. For the purpose of convenience, 1 shall extract Section 10(1) of the Act, which reads as follows:
10(1) A tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this section or Sections l4 to 16:
Provided that nothing contained in the said sections shall apply to a tenant whose landlord is the Government:
Provided further that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Controller shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide and if he records a finding to that1 effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil court and the court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in the said sections, notwithstanding that the court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded.
5. I shall now consider the evidence concerning the above point. On the side of the tenant, receipts issued by the landlord right from 1962 are filed. They are Exs. R-1 to R-69 and R-103 to R-109. In those receipts, it is mentioned that, they are issued only for site. There is no mention of the building in those receipts. These receipts were issued by the landlord/revision petitioner. The importance of the same cannot be minimised. On the other hand, the landlord had filed the ledgers maintained by it which contain entries regarding receipt of rent from the tenant. Those entries read that rents were received for the shop. The exhibits filed on the side of the tenant support his case that only site was leased out and the building does not belong to the landlord. On the contrary, the ledgers filed by the landlord support the landlord's case that the shop itself is the subject matter of the eviction petition. Thus, there is a bono fide dispute with regard to the title to the building which is the subject matter of the eviction petition. At this juncture, I would like to point out that Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, would reply upon an answer elicited from R.W. 1 which is to the effect that, at the time when Krishnappan came as a tenant, there was structure. But, it is his case that Krishnappan had purchased that structure. He has stated that, Krishnappan told that it was purchased for Rs. 100. In view of the answers given by R.W. 1 with regard to that superstructure, his answer that there was a superstructure at the time when Krishnappan came as a tenant, would not help the landlord. The materials available in this case would clearly go to show that there is a bona fide dispute with regard to title to the building situated in the premises described in the petition. The finding in this regard by the Appellate Authority is correct. Consequently the landlord is entitled to claim eviction of the tenant in a civil court.
6. In view of the above finding, which would oust jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to entertain a claim for eviction, it is wholly unnecessary to give any finding on the other matters in dispute between the parties viz., whether it was a public trust or a private trust or whether acts of waste were committed or not committed. Hence, I am not recording any findings with regard to these two aspects. It is left open to the parties to raise these points in the civil court. Taking this view of the matter, this civil revision petition will have to necessarily fail and shall stand dismissed. No costs.