Madras High Court
K. Ramanuja Reddiar And Anr. vs Kamalammal (Died) And Ors. on 11 August, 1991
Equivalent citations: (1962)1MLJ336
JUDGMENT Ganapatia Pillai, J.
1. This Revision Petition is by tenants, who have been ordered to be evicted from the lands in their possession, on a complaint by the landlord alleging that the tenants denied landlord's title to the lands by various acts. One of the acts relied upon by the landlord and accepted by the Revenue Divisional Officer was that when the landlord wanted to put up an electric motor to pump water from a well situated near the tenants' lands for the purpose of irrigating not only the tenants' lands but also the other lands of the landlord lying in the vicinity, the tenants refused to allow the landlord access to the land to put up a shed to house the motor and also bargained for reduction of rent as a condition of allowing the landlord to carry out his object. The Revenue Divisional Officer held that this conduct of the tenants amounted to wilful denial of the title of the landlord. Mr. Balasubramaniam for the petitioner contends that the tenants never denied that they were liable to pay rent due and in fact they asserted that the rent had been paid very promptly every year. According to him, denial of title could occur only in a case where the tenant denies, the ownership of the landlord to the land in toto and not in any other case.
2. Wilful denial of title of the landlord can be inferred even in a case where while paying lip service to the title of the landlord, the tenant effectively prevents the landlord from enjoying the rights appurtenant to title. In this case, the landlord was entitled, as an improvement to her land, to put up an electric motor for the purpose of irrigating her lands. It is not denied by Mr. Balasubramaniam that the landlord had such a right in this case. But he would argue that the denial of this right would not amount to denial of the title of the landlord. That is to say, according to him, there would be a denial of title only where there is a denial of all the bundle of rights which are compendiously called title to property. To test this argument I shall take for instance a case where a house is let to a tenant and the landlord has a right on previous notice to the tenant to go upon the premises for inspection, and for effecting necessary repairs to the building. Suppose the house needs repairs and the landlord gives notice to the tenant that he should be allowed to inspect the premises for estimating the repair-work necessary. Let us assume that in such a case the tenant unreasonably refuses permission to the landlord to inspect the premises and to carry out the repairs. Gould it be said that in such a case the tenant denied the title of the landlord? It is true in the case posited by me the tenant does not deny that the building belongs to the landlord but effectively prevents the owner from making repairs to the property. In so preventing the owner from exercising his rights, he has impliedly denied the title of the landlord though he might conveniently say that the building belonged to the landlord. The essence of the matter is not what declaration a tenant makes as to the ownership of the land but what the conduct of the tenant is with reference to the exercise of rights by the owner. I am satisfied in this case that the tenants impliedly denied the title of the landlord by not allowing her to put up an electric motor. By my saying "impliedly denied title" I am not distinguishing it from "wilful denial of title" found in the section of the Act. A wilful denial may be either express or implied. The Act does not say that it should be explicit. What is wilful is easy of definition in the context of the facts of this case. What is done inadvertently would not be wilful. But what is done with a consciousness of the intended effect is certainly wilful. A tenant,, who knows that the landlord is entitled to come upon the property for effecting an improvement and, despite this knowledge, does not allow the landlord to go upon the land for that purpose is doing a wilful act and this is wilful denial of the title of the landlord.
3. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer is correct and the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.