Madras High Court
S.Mohanraj vs R.Renuka Devi on 25 November, 2024
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
CRP.No.4674 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
C.R.P.No.4674 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.26153 of 2024
S.Mohanraj .. Petitioner
Versus
1.R.Renuka Devi
2.Dhanammal .. Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, to call for the records of the order and decree made in the
nature of dismissing the appeal in RLTA.No.115 of 2022 dated 30.09.2024
on the file of the 19th Additional City Civil Judge at Madras and thereby
confirmed the order of eviction made in R.L.T.O.P.No.290 of 2022 dated
06.09.2022 on the file of learned 15th Small Causes Court at Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilnathan
ORDER
Challenge has been made to the concurrent findings of the rent appellate authority and rent controller ordering eviction. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 15 CRP.No.4674 of 2024
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the revision is as follows:
2.a. Application has been filed by the respondents/landlord for eviction of the tenant/revision petitioner on the ground that agreement of tenancy has not been registered after the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlord and Tenants Act, 2017 ("TNRRRLT Act"
hereinafter) came into force. Therefore, invoking Section 21(2)(a), the application was filed before the Rent Controller.
2.b. It was the case of the respondents/landlord that the revision petitioner was inducted as the tenant during the year 2000 for a monthly rent of Rs.1,100/- and and had paid a sum of Rs.2,500/- as security deposit and further additional security deposit of Rs.2500/- have been paid, there was no written contract between the parties. The revision petitioner paid monthly rent till July 2012. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.1619 of 2012 before the II Assistant City Civil Court not to dispossess the revision petitioner from the demised premises. As the rents have not been paid, he has issued a legal notice demanding payment of Rs.1,25,400/- as rent and to vacate and handover vacant possession of the demised premises. Hence, sought eviction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 15 CRP.No.4674 of 2024
2.c. It was the contention of the revision petitioner that he was inducted as a tenant in the scheduled property from the year 1976 onwards and one Kuppusamy, who is the husband of the 2 nd respondent. The said Kuppusamy had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,82,000/- and executed a mortgage deed in favour of the revision petitioner in the year 2001 that the amount has to be paid by the first respondent's husband. The said Kuppusamy died in the year 2001. However, in the year 2015, the respondent broke upon the house and committed theft, in this regard, a case is also filed.
2.d. The Rent Controller has allowed the application on the ground that tenancy has not been registered as per the TNRRRLT Act. The appellate authority also confirmed that order and before the appellate authority, an additional ground has been raised by the revision petitioner that land on which the superstructure stands belong to the HR&CE Department. Therefore, according to them, eviction is not maintainable as per Section 3 of the TNRRRLT Act. However, the first appellate authority negatived that plea on the ground that such ground has been raised only in appeal and ordered eviction. Challenging the order, the present revision. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 15 CRP.No.4674 of 2024
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submit that Section 3(c) of the TNRRRLT Act clearly bars the rent Controller to entertain the petition in respect of the property owned by religious or charitable institutions as may be specified by the Government, by notification. Admittedly, the land in which superstructure stands belong to the HR & CE Department, it has been admitted by the so-called landlord in the counter before the appellate authority. Further, as per Section 2(f) of the TNRRRLT Act, “premises” means any building or part of a building including grounds. Hence, seeks to allow this revision petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record.
5. Admittedly, induction of the revision petitioner as a tenant in the building is not disputed. The counter filed by the revision petitioner before the Rent Controller indicate that he was inducted as a tenant in the petition premises in the year 1976 on agreed rents. The only stand taken by the revision petitioner in the counter is that the husband of the second https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 15 CRP.No.4674 of 2024 respondent had executed a mortgage deed in favour of the respondent in the year 2001, however, the so-called mortgage deed has not been established before the Trial Court. Be that as it may, once a person was inducted as tenant is estopped from denying the title of the landlord as per Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 122 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Therefore, the contention that the application is not maintainable cannot be countenanced.
6. Now, the contention of the learned counsel that the very applicability of the Act itself is barred under Section 3(c) of the TNRRRLT Act since the land belongs to religious institutions. Such contention also in view of this Court have no legs to stand. It is relevant to note that under Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"), when the patta has been issued in respect of superstructure under Section 13 of the Act, concept of the dual patta will get attracted. For easy reference, Section 13 of the Act reads as follows:
"13(1) : Every building situated within the limits of an inam land shall, with effect on and from the appointed day, vest in the person who owned it immediately before that day but the Government shall be entitled for each fasli year commencing https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 15 CRP.No.4674 of 2024 with the fasli year in which the appointed day falls to levy the appropriate assessment thereon.
(2) In this section, 'Building' includes the site on which it stands and any adjacent premises occupied as an appurtenance thereto."
7. The above provision makes it clear that unless the owner of the building is also the owner of the site, the building inclusive of the site will not vest in the owner of the building. Further, there is no statutory transfer effected in respect of the site on which the building stand. It is relevant to note that this Court in the case of Sri Kumarakattalai Subrahmanyaswami Devasthanam v. K.S.Sundararajulu Chettiar made in S.A.No.1484 of 1971, judgment dated 16.08.1974, wherein, it is held as as follows:
"On the other ground rested on Section 13, we are of opinion that the effect of a combined reading of the two Sub- sections of that Section 13 of Madras Act XXX of 1963 is that, unless the owner of the building is also the owner of the site, the building inclusive of the site will not vest in the owner of the building. In other words, the effect of Sub- section (2) is not to make a statutory transfer of the land to the owner of the building where it had not formerly belonged to him.”
8. In the case of Shri Thiagarajaswami Devasthanam, Thiruvarur, Thanjavur District rep by its Executive Officer vs. The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Madras and others reported in 2000-2- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 15 CRP.No.4674 of 2024 L.W.103, this Court, in paragraph 9 held as follows:
" 9. I am of the view that the issue raised in the writ petition is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in R.Manicka Naicker's case (AIR 1995 SC.1613=1995-1- LWL.731). The Supreme Court has considered the scope, object and purpose of the Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963, particularly, the scope of Section 13 of the said Act and held as under:
"Section 13 does not vest any property in a person in whom that property did not vest prior to the appointed day. It merely sets out that a building shall vest in the person who owned it immediately before the appointed day. Section 13(2) merely provides that the site on which the building stands will also be covered by section 13(1). Hence the site on which the building stands will vest in the person who owned it immediately before the appointed date."
(Emphasis supplied).
In the case of Sri Kumarakattalai Subrahmanyaswami Devasthanam v. K.S. Sunderarajulu Chettiar, ILR (1975) 1 Mad., 501, a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court considered the provisions of Section 13 of the said Act and held that unless the owner of the building is also the owner of the site, the site will not vest in the owner. The effect of sub-section (2) is not to make a statutory transfer of the land to the owner of the building where it had not formerly belonged to him. An inamdar who continues to be in constructive possession of the site even after the notified date would be entitled to recover possession from his tenant. We respect-fully agree with these findings of the learned Single Judge.
(Emphasis supplied)."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 15 CRP.No.4674 of 2024
9. Further, in the case of R.Manicka Naicker vs. E.Elumalai Naicker reported in (1995) 4 SCC 156, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 has held as follows:
12. The contention of. the appellant that by virtue of Section 13, the land underneath the building also vests in him must be rejected. Section 13 does not vest any property in a person in whom that property did not vest prior to the appointed day. It merely sets out that a building shall vest in the person who owned it immediately before the appointed day. Section 13(2) merely provides that the site on which the building stands will also be covered by section 13(1). Hence the site on which the building stands will vest in the person who owned it immediately before the appointed date.
13. In the case of Sri Kumarakattalai Subrahmanyaswami Devasthanam v. K.S. Sunderarajulu Chettiar, ILR (1975) 1 Mad., 501, a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court considered the provisions of Section 13 of the said Act and held that unless the owner of the building is also the owner of the site, the site will not vest in the owner. The effect of sub-section (2) is not to make a statutory transfer of the land to the owner of the building where it had not formerly belonged to him. An inamdar who continues to be in constructive possession of the site even after the notified date would be entitled to recover possession from his tenant.
We respect-fully agree with these findings of the learned Single Judge.
14. Moreover, in the present case, the patta granted expressly provides that the appellant has been granted a ground rent patta only in respect of the building, while the patta for the site has been granted to the respondent. A joint patta seems to have been granted in the names of both the appellant and the respondent because of the claim of the appellant to the building and the claim of the respondent to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 15 CRP.No.4674 of 2024 the site on which the building stands. Therefore, looking to the nature of the grant of the patta also it cannot be said that by virtue of the patta, the site on which the building stands has been, in any manner, transferred to the appellant or vests in him. The appellant cannot, therefore, claim that the decree for possession cannot be executed against him because he has become the owner of the site."
10. Moreover, the concept of dual ownership under Section 13 of the Act was also categorically laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.S.Thirugnasambandam Chettiar (dead) by Lrs etc., Vs. The Settlement Thesildar, Coimbatore & others reported in CDJ 1995 SC 1335 and relevant findings read thus :-
"It is, therefore, not necessary that both the site and the building should belong to one and the same person so as to derive the benefit of Section 13 with effect from the appointed day. A dual estate is not repugnant to the provision, which evidently is of a very special nature, when ryotwari patta may not be admissible for a building per se, but may be admissible for the site standing thereon.”
11. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of L.Varalakshmi vs. Commissioner and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 7715 has held that building is vested in the person as per Section 13 of the Act, however, the land on which the building is situated will not vest in them https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 15 CRP.No.4674 of 2024 because they were not the owners of the land immediately before the appointed day and it is only the temple which was. As such, the joint ground rent patta is given. The meaning of the joint ground rent patta would be that the temple is the owner of the land and the appellant’s father will be owner of the superstructure. Such dual ownership is recognised law of our country and is very much part of the scheme of things under the Act. While holding so, in paragraph 21, has held as follows:
"21. Thus, it can be seen that the appellant is only the owner of the superstructure. The second respondent temple is the owner of the land in question. It is entitled to revise the rent. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the findings of the learned Single Judge entitling the respondents to revise the rent."
12. Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kandasamy @ Muthu Mudaliar vs. Sri Ranganathaswamy (Idol) rep. through his Executive Officer, Srirangam, Trichy reported in 2023 (2) CWC 610 has held that temple is entitled for patta absolutely for land enumerated under Second Schedule and patta for the site for the land enumerated under First schedule whereupon building has been constructed.
13. As far as the R.Manicka Naicker's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 10 of 15 CRP.No.4674 of 2024 has held that even in such cases, as the site vests with the temple, suit for recover of possession of the land from the tenant is maintainable by the HR & CE.
14. The settled position as stated above makes it very clear that as long as the HR & CE is not exercising the right to recover possession from the tenant in respect of the superstructure vested with the tenant as per the Section 13 of the Act when the revision petitioner was inducted into the building as a tenant, now, he cannot take advantage of Section 3 of TNRRRLT Act to contend that since the premises owned by religious endowments will not apply.
15. The very Section 3 of TNRRRLT Act makes it clear that act will not apply to any premises owned by the religious or charitable institutions as may be specified by the Government, by notification. Admittedly, in the present case, building or superstructure is under dual patta concept, it has been recognised and the premises is also held by individuals, in which, the petitioner was inducted as tenant. Therefore, the contention that Section 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 15 CRP.No.4674 of 2024 of the TNRRRLT Act will apply cannot be countenanced.
16. As far as the findings of both the Courts that agreement has not been registered after the TNRRRLT Act came into force, once the agreement has not been registered it will also give rise to Section 21(2)(a) of the TNRRRLT Act. It is relevant to note that this Court in the case of M/s.Vacher Mills Stores vs. K. Gunasekaran made in C.R.P.(PD).No.3726 of 2024 dated 18.09.2024 has held as follows:
"7. The position of law was settled by the judgment of this Court in S.Muruganandam Vs. J.Joseph, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 375, by the Hon-ble Mr.Justice R.Subramanian, wherein, it is held that even if the mistake lies on the part of the landlord in not entering into an agreement, all that the Rent Controller would have to see, while disposing of the application under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act, is the existence of the agreement. Though the argument of Mr.G.Murugendran is very inviting, if I were to accept that plea, I would be literally rewriting Section 21(2)(a) of the Act from the words “failed to enter into an agreement“ to “failed to enter into an agreement on account of the mistake of the tenant“. The power to amend the statute is not available with this Court. The section has to be read as it is, unless and until, it is going to result in absurdity.
8. The purpose of bringing the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 was to provide a summary procedure for eviction of tenant. If the interpretation of Mr.G.Murugendran is to be accepted by me, I would be defeating the purpose of the new Rent Control Act and I would be pushing the parties to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 12 of 15 CRP.No.4674 of 2024 same protracted trial that used to take place under Section 10(2)(1) of the repealed Rent Control Act. The learned Rent Controller has given cogent reasons in the paragraph No.7 of the impugned order. She has correctly appreciated the law that when a petition under Section 21(2)(a) of the Act is filed, the Court cannot look into the reason for failure to enter into a tenancy agreement under Section 4(2) of the Act.
9. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any merits in this revision. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
17. Considering the above, I do not find any merits in this revision and accordingly, this revision stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
18. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to vacate the petition premises within a period of six months from today without any recourse to the execution proceedings and in this regard, the petitioner has filed affidavit of undertaking before this Court. Such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to grant six months time to the petitioner to vacate the petition premises and handover the vacant possession within a period of six months from today. The affidavit of undertaking shall form part of the record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 13 of 15 CRP.No.4674 of 2024 25.11.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No N.SATHISH KUMAR, J., dhk To, 1.The XIX Additional Judge XIX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai 2. The XV Judge XV Court of Small Causes, Chennai C.R.P.No.4674 of 2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 14 of 15 CRP.No.4674 of 2024 25.11.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 15 of 15