Madras High Court
G.H.Basheer Ahamed vs P.Baskar on 21 December, 2023
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 13.06.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 21 .12.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020
1.G.H.Basheer Ahamed
2.A.Gopinathan ... Petitioners in both cases
Vs.
P.Baskar
rep by power of Attorney P.Suresh .. Respondent in both cases
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair order and decree in
RCA.Nos.24 and 25 of 2017 respectively dated 27.02.2020 on the file
of the Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Subordinate Court, Vellore,
in confirming the order and decree of the Rent Controller-cum-
Principal District Munsif in RCOP.Nos.33 & 28 of 2006 dated
07.10.2017 respectively is even otherwise illegal, incompetent,
irregular and without jurisdiction and in any event liable to be set aside.
For Petitioners : M/s.B.S.Mitraneshaa for
(in both CRPs) M/s.V.Srimathi
For Respondent : Mr.M.Sathish Kumar
(in both CRPs) for Mr.S.Raja Ravi Varma.
1/28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020
COMMON ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition had been filed against the fair order and decree in RCA.Nos.24 and 25 of 2017 respectively dated 27.02.2020 on the file of the Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Subordinate Court, Vellore, in confirming the order and decree of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif in RCOP.Nos.33 & 28 of 2006 dated 07.10.2017.
2.The brief facts which are relevant to decide these cases are as follows:
2.1.The Revision Petitioners herein are landlords filed RCOP.No.33 of 2006 on the file of the learned Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(vii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960.
2.2.The Revision Petitioners were the Petitioners in RCOP.No.33 of 2006. The Revision Petitioners purchased the property which was leased out to the Respondent. The property was purchased from Madrasa–I- 2/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore, represented by its President and Trustee. The said Trust is a private Trust and it was the property of the said Trust. The Respondent in RCOP, is a tenant in the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs.1800. The Respondent has been making payment of rent to the previous owner till February 2005. The first Petitioner purchased the property on 21.03.2005. Subsequent to the purchase, the Respondent did not make any payment towards the rent. The vendor has also informed the Respondent about the same and directed the tenant to pay the rent to the Petitioners. Subsequent to the purchase, the first Petitioner herein as the Petitioners in RCOP approached the Respondent/tenant and duly informed about his purchase. The Respondent has also agreed to pay the rent to the Petitioners during March 2005, but the Respondent had changed his mind and failed to pay the rent with an ulterior motive and he had been evading payment of rent under one pretext or other. When the first Petitioner pressed for payment and informed about the eviction proceedings, the tenant filed O.S.No.431 of 2005 for injunction by denying the title of the first Petitioner.
3/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 2.3.The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board was also added as a party to the suit. In the suit, the Wakf Board had filed a written statement, wherein, they have not claimed any right over the schedule of property. They have not denied the right of the first Petitioner's vendors/Trust to sell the schedule mentioned property.
2.4.The first Petitioner issued a legal notice demanding arrears of rent. The Respondent has not paid the rent since March 2005. The Respondent is liable to pay the arrears of rent for 11 months, amounting to Rs.19,800/- The vendors of the Petitioners had also directed the Respondent to pay the rent to the Petitioners. The non-payment of rent is wilful. Mere filing of the suit will not save the Respondent from his liability to pay the rent. The claim of deposit of rent into Court without notice or without an order of the Court will not affect the rights of the Petitioners. The Respondent has failed to pay the rent in spite of repeated demands, the default committed by the Respondent is nothing but wilful and wanton. The Respondent has become liable to be evicted.
4/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 2.5.The suit in O.S.No.431 of 2005 has nothing to do with his liabiltiy to pay the rent. In these cases, there are no rival claim at all. The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board had not denied the ownership of the Petitioners over the schedule property. Subsequent to this petition, the first Petitioner sold the property to the second Petitioner for valid consideration. Therefore, the second Petitioner has right to continue with the proceedings.
2.6.The Respondent as tenant in RCOP filed counter claiming that originally the tenant was inducted based on the tenancy agreement with the Madrasa-I_Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore from the year 1994. The Respondent received letter dated 30.04.2005 that the representative of the College had sold the property to the first Petitioner under Sale Deed dated 21.03.2005. The Respondent received lawyers notice dated 02.05.2005 and 13.05.2005 stating that the property has been sold to the first Petitioner without obtaining prior written sanction of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board as per Section 51 of the Wakf Act, 1995. 5/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 2.7.A petition had been filed by one Janaf H.P.Abdul Razaq under Section 64, 70 and 52 of the Wakf Act, 1995 demanding to take over the property which were sold illegally to the Petitioners. The Respondent is not able to ascertain the ownership of the said property and in the said circumstances the Respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.431 of 2005 seeking permission to deposit the rent into Court and to evict him with due process of law.
2.8.The Respondent denied the title of the first Petitioner since the vendor has no right to sell the properties to the first Petitioner under sale deed dated 21.03.2005. The Respondent is depositing the rent into the Court without any default. Therefore, the Respondent seeks to dismiss the RCOP.
2.9.The Respondent had also filed a Additional Counter stating that the sale deed executed by the first Petitioner in favour of the second Petitioner is not valid. The second Petitioner also cannot made any claim in RCOP Petition.
6/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 2.10.After due enquiry, the Learned Rent Controller, Vellore had dismissed the RCOP.No.33 of 2006 as per order dated 07.10.2017. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal of RCOP.No.33 of 2006, the Petitioners have filed RCA.Nos.24 and 25 of 2017 on the file of the Learned Rent Control Appellate Authority/Learned Principal Sub Judge, Vellore.
2.11.After hearing the both parties, the Learned Principal Sub Judge, Vellore as Rent Control Appellate Authority had dismissed the RCA.Nos.24 and 25 of 2017 by an order dated 27.02.2020 thereby confirming the order of the Learned Rent Controller in RCOP.No.33 of 2006 dated 07.10.2017.
3.Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of RCA.Nos.24 and 25 of 2017 confirming the order of the Learned Rent Controller, Vellore the Petitioner in RCOP.No.33 of 2006, the landlord of the premises had filed these Civil Revision Petitions to set aside the order of the Learned Rent Controller dismissing the RCOP.No.33 of 2006 dated 07.10.2017 and to order eviction of the Respondent from the premises.
7/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020
4.The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that originally the Respondent as tenant was inducted as a tenant by the President and Trustees of Madrasa–I-Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore. The property belong to the Madrasa–I-Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore Trust which is a private Trust. The Respondent/tenant was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.1,800/-. The Respondent was paid the rent till February 2005. The Petitioner in RCOP., G.H.Basheer Ahamed purchased the property on 21.03.2005. Subsequent to the purchase, the purchaser as well as his vendor had informed the Respondent/tenant about the same and directed him to pay the rent to the Petitioners. He agreed to pay the rent to the Petitioners from March 2005, but evaded to pay the rent under one pretext or the other. Subsequently, the Respondent filed O.S.No.431 of 2005 seeking injunction against the Petitioners and not to evict him by force, until evicted by due process of law and had been paying the rent before the Court.
8/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020
5.When the first Petitioner issued legal notice demanding the arrears of rent, the Respondent sent reply disputing the title and ownership of the landlord. The Respondent in RCOP.No.33 of 2006 had also filed suit in O.S.No.431 of 2005.
6.The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners invited attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, the principle of estoppel by tenant. The tenant is not expected to dispute the title of the landlord of the property, in which he is a tenant.
7.In these cases, there are no rival claims, the Petitioner was inducted as a tenant by President and Trustees of Madrasa–I-Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore. The very same trustees had informed him of the sale of the property to the first Petitioner/G.H.Basheer Ahamed and also informed the tenant to pay the rent to the Petitioners. While so, it is his duty to pay the rent to the Petitioners after the purchase of property. Instead, the Respondent had been disputing the title and evading to pay a rent. 9/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020
8.The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners also submitted that the rent controller cannot decide the title of the property in rent control proceedings.
9.Here in this case, the Learned Rent Controller had dismissed the RCOP.No.33 of 2006 by an order dated 07.10.2017 accepting the claim of the Respondent/tenant that the property belong to the Wakf.
10.The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners also invited the attention of this Court that in the suit filed by the Respondent in RCOP.No.33 of 2006 in O.S.No.431 of 2005 for bare injunction. The Wakf Board was also impleaded as a necessary party. The Wakf Board had in the written statement had not claimed the title or ownership of the property under lease to the Respondent.
11.Also, if the Respondent's claim is to be accepted, the suit in O.S.No.431 of 2005 filed by the Respondent cannot be maintained as per Section 85 of the Wakf Act.
10/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020
12.Therefore, the order of the Learned Rent Controller, Vellore dismissing the RCOP.No.33 of 2006 is against the principles and provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act. As Rent controller under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, the rent controller has no power to decide the title of the property, whereas, the learned Rent Controller, Vellore has misdirected himself and had accepted the contentions of the Respondent/tenant and dismissed the claim of the Petitioner which is perverse in the light of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act and as per Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.
13.Unfortunately, the Rent Control Appeal preferred by the Petitioner in RCA.Nos.24 and 25 of 2017 was also dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority by an order dated 27.02.2020 confirming the order of the Learned Rent Controller. Therefore, the order of the Learned Rent Controller confirmed by the Learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is to be set aside.
11/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020
14.These Revision Petitions filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1916 as amended by Act 23 of 1973.
15.The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners cited the following rulings in support of the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner in the case of E.Chitra Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited [(2022) 8 MLJ 237], the relevant portion which reads as under:
11.The Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaspal Kaur Cheema Vs. Industrial Trade Links reported in MANU/SC/0760/2017; [2017] 8 SCC 592 has held that the tenant cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time after being put in possession of the premises and they cannot deny the title of the landlord. In this regard it is useful to refer the judgment of the Division Bench this Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Vs. R.Ravikrishnan reported in MANU/TN/3330/2011: 2011 [5] CTC 437, wherein the Corporation took a plea under Section 9 of the City Protection Act that since the Corporation entered into a dealership agreement with the dealer and the Corporation is not in actual possession of the property and it has been held that Corporation cannot invoke Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. It is also relevant to note that the above judgment has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the latest judgment in National Company represented by its Managing Partner Vs. Territory Manager, Bharat 12/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 Petroleum Corporation Limited and another reported in MANU/SC/1050/2021 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the Respondent to vacate and hand over the possession. As the Respondent corporation is squatting in the property without paying any rent after expiry of lease in the year 1998, they cannot continue in possession of the property as their possession is nothing but illegal as that of a trespasser and they are bound to vacate the premises. Considering the above position of law, now for the sake of defending their possession, the Respondent corporation cannot take a different stand during the submissions that the property belong to Wakf and that is also not permissible in law, since they are estopped from denying the title of the landlord. Now it is stated that the license issued to the dealer also has been suspended due to some irregularities and the same has been challenged.
and in the case of Om Prakash and Others Vs. Mishri Lal (Dead) represented by his LR.Savitri Devi and Others [AIR 2017 SC 1597), relevant portion which reads as under:
34.That a tenant during the continuance of the tenancy is debarred on the doctrine of estoppel from denying the title of his landlord through whom he claims tenancy, as is enshrined in Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is so well-settled a legal postulation that no decision need be cited to further consolidate the same. This enunciation, amongst others is reiterated by this Court in S.Thangnappan Vs. P.Padmavathy MANU/SC/0531/1999: (1999) 7 SCC 474 and Bhogadi Kannababu and ors. Vs. 13/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 Vuggina Pydamma and others, MANU/SC/2687/2006: (2006) 5 SCC 532. In any view of the matter, the Appellants, being the son of Bhola Nath, who at all relevant time, was the landlord vis-a-
vis the original Defendant and the Respondents in terms of Section 3(j) of the Act, their status as landlords for the purpose of eviction under the Act, could not have been questioned so as to non suit them for want of locus.
16.The un-reported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.A.No.106 of 2014 in the case of Keshar Bai Vs. Chhunulal, relevant portion which reads as under:-
This Court referred to its decision in Tej Bhan Madan v. II Additiional District Judge and Ors in which it was held that a tenant was precluded from denying the title of the landlady on the general principles of estoppel between landlord and tenant and that this principle, in its basic foundations, means no more than that under certain circumstances law considers it unjust to allow a person to approbate and reprobate. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act is clearly applicable to such a situation. This Court held that even if the landlady was not entitled to inherit the properties in question, she could still maintain the application for eviction and the finding of fact recorded by the courts below in favour of the landlady was not liable to be disturbed.
17.The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners also invited the attention of this Court to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 14/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 Appeal (Civil) No.3965 of 1999 in the case of Sheela and Others Vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, relevant portion reads as under:-
After the creation of the tenancy if the title of landlord is transferred or devolves upon a third person the tenant is not estopped from denying such title. However, if the tenant having been apprised of the transfer, assignment or devolution of rights acknowledges the title of transferee eighter expressly or by paying rent to him, the rule of estoppel once again comes into operation for it is unjust to allow tenant to approbate and reprobate and so long as the tenant enjoys everything which his lease purports to grant how does it concern him what the title of the lessor is [See Tej Bhan Madan Vs. II Additional District Judge and Ors. (1988) 3 SCC 137]. A denial of title which falls foul of the rule of estoppel contained in Section 116 of the Evidence Act is considered in law a malicious act on the part of the tenant as it is determental to the interest of the landlord and does no good to the lessee himself.
18.The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent was a tenant under the Madrasa–I-Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore. Subsequent to the sale of the property, the Respondent came to know that the sale was not as per the Wakf Act. The vendor of the property and the purchaser of the property should have obtained prior permission from the Wakf Board and they had not done so. Therefore, the Respondent/tenant had no other option to approach the Court for bare 15/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 injunction by filing the suit in O.S.No.431 of 2005, wherein, the Respondent had impleaded the Wakf Board as a party to the suit, to show his bonafide. He had clearly stated his contentions in the Counter that the property was sold without obtaining proper permission from the Wakf Board and also examined Inspector of Wakf as Respondent side witnesses/RW2.
19.In his evidence, he has stated about the fact that the Madrasa–I- Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore is covered under the Wakf Act. Therefore, on proper appreciation of evidence only, the Learned Rent Controller had dismissed the RCOP. The Learned Rent Controller had on the basis of evidence of R.W.2/Wakf Inspector filing the document under Ex.R1 proforma Gazette Notification regarding Wakf properties had clearly stated in the order and accordingly dismissed the petition in the light of the G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home dated 16.08.1976.
20.Also, the Learned Rent Controller had relied on the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home, dated 16/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 16.08.1976 which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kandasamy Chettiar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1985) 1 SCC 290.
21.Therefore, these Revisions are not at all maintainable. Further, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent furnished typed set, wherein, the suit filed by the Respondent herein was also dismissed passing strictures against the Wakf authorities for filing such a written statement and for remaining indifferent to the sale executed by the President and Trustees of Madrasa–I- Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore.
22.It is to be noted that in the very same Judgment in O.S., wherein, the Revision Petitioners herein as Petitioners in RCOP.No.33 of 2006, where Defendants two and three, they were directed to re-deposit the amount that was already deposited by the Respondent as Plaintiff in O.S.No.431 of 2005. I.A.No. 967 of 2013 was filed by the Revision Petitioners herein as Petitioner in I.A.No.986 of 2012 as Defendant in O.S.No.431 of 2005 seeking permission to withdraw the rent deposited by the Respondent herein as Plaintiff in O.S.No.431 of 2005. The said amount 17/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 was directed to be deposited into the Court by the Defendants therein who had withdrawn the amount periodically during the course of the pendency of the suit. Therefore, the suit was also dismissed as not maintainable.
23.The forum filed by the Petitioners in RCOP, the Rent Controller Court is not attracted as per the Wakf Act. Therefore, as per the Section 85 of the Wakf Act, the rent control proceedings were dismissed which was rightly confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
24.The Learned Principal Sub Judge, Vellore by its judgment dated 27.02.2020. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the Plaintiff in O.S.No.431 of 2005 had filed AS, the appeal was also dismissed, as against which no second appeal has been preferred by the Respondent. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Rent Controller having been upheld the RCA.Nos.24 and 25 of 2017, these Civil Revision Petitions are not at all maintainable. Hence, these Civil Revision Petitions are to be dismissed. 18/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020
25.The principles in Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, is not attracted in this case. As the Respondent was originally tenant under the Madrasa–I-Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore, there is no dispute regarding the landlord. Only after sale by the original landlord to the Petitioners in RCOP.No.33 of 2006, the tenant came to know that they have not obtained proper permission from the Wakf Board and the said Madrasa– I-Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore was covered under the Wakf Act and the proforma of the Wakf Act clearly mentions that the said Madrasa–I-Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore, is a Wakf property under the definition, “Wakf” for religious obligations. The students of muslim community are imparted religious, teachings through this College. Therefore, the Respondent suspecting the bona fide of the Petitioners had rightly approached the Court seeking injunction preventing the Petitioners in RCOP from evicting him by force. To show his bona fide, he had deposited the rent regularly before the Court, which was periodically withdrawn by the Defendant in the suit/Revision Petitioners herein. The clear finding of the Learned Rent Controller had been upheld by the Learned Rent Control Appellate authority/Principal Sub Judge, Vellore. 19/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 Therefore, the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners is not applicable to the specific facts of the case. The rulings cited by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners do not hold good in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, these Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
26.On consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the Learned Rent Control in RCOP.No.33 of 2006, the order passed by the Learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.Nos.24 and 25 of 2017 and on perusal of the rulings cited by the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners. The rulings cited by the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners is found acceptable in cases where the tenant disputed the title of the landlord.
27.Here the Respondent was inducted as a tenant by the President and Trustees of the Madrasa–I-Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore. He had been regularly paying the rent to the trustees of the said College. The President and Trustees of the Madrasa–I-Baquiathus Salihath Arabic 20/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 College, Vellore, sold the property to the first Petitioner/Basheer Ahamed. During the pendency of the RCOP, he had sold the property to the second Petitioner/Gopinath. The Respondent as tenant was aware that the properties were under the Wakf Board. Since the Madrasa–I-Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore, was covered under the Entry No.84 of the proforma of the Wakf Board as per G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home, dated 16.08.1976.
28.Therefore, the tenant was able to establish that the Madrasa–I- Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore, was covered under the Wakf Act. The claim of the vendor of the Rent Control Petition, the Petitioner in RCOP. The said Madrasa–I-Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore, was a private Trust was found to be not true in the light of the evidence given by the Wakf Inspector who was examined as R.W.2 before the Rent Controller.
29.Therefore, on proper appreciation of evidence only the Learned Rent Controller had dismissed the Rent Control proceedings in the light of 21/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home, dated 16.08.1976. As per Section 85 of the Wakf Act any proceedings before Civil Court is barred. The very same holds good regarding the Rent Control proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act. Instead of filing RCOP, if the Petitioners had approached the Wakf Tribunal for evicting the tenant, may be it could have been maintainable, ignoring the G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home, dated 16.08.1976. The Petitioner had approached the Learned Rent Controller in which the tenant has resisted the sale. To show the bona fide, the tenants had paid rent in the Civil Court by filing the suit in O.S. Therefore, the tenant cannot be blamed regarding disputing the title. It is to be noted that the Learned Rent Controller had passed comments adversely against the Wakf Board officials for their carelessness and indifference for creating encumbrance over the Wakf property as against the G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home, dated 16.08.1976, there is clear mention of the Madrasa–I-Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore, covered under Wakf Act in Entry 84 as per the Wakf proforma. Therefore, the submission of the Learned Revision Petitioner that the Learned Rent Controller had travelled beyond his discretion is found unacceptable as Judicial Officers, 22/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 Judges are expected to take note of official act of the state by judicial notice. Therefore, the Learned Rent Controller had taken judicial notice of G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home, dated 16.08.1976 the Learned Judge is not expected to remain blind in the light of the evidence of RW2 summoned by tenant. The Wakf Inspector as R.W.2 there is specific evidence through R.W.2 that entry 84 in the proforma of the Wakf specifically mentions about the Madrasa–I-Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore, under which ascertained by the Respondent. Therefore, the averments of the Petitioners in RCOP, that the College was a private Trust and they had sold the property to the Revision Petitioners will not hold good.
30.The reported rulings cited by the leaned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners will not help the Revision Petitioner's case. If the Respondent in this Revision Petition was a tenant under the first Petitioner/Basheer Ahamed as an individual. He having sold it to the second Petitioner/Gopinathan duly informing the tenant to pay rent to the purchaser Gopinathan then the above stated rulings comes to the rescue of the Revision Petitioners. Here it is not the case. The trustees of the Madrasa–I- 23/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 Baquiathus Salihath Arabic College, Vellore, had sold the property to Basheer Ahamed/first Petitioner in RCOP. During the pendency of the RCOP, the first Petitioner had sold the property to the second Petitioner/Gopinathan in RCOP.
31.In the enquiry before the learned Rent Controller through the evidence of Wakf Inspector it was found out that the property sold belonged to the Wakf under 84 of the proforma of the Wakf Act as per the G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home, dated 16.08.1976. When the Wakf properties involved, the rent control proceedings cannot be initiated and it is not maintainable. Therefore, the Learned Rent Controller had taken note of the judicial notice of the G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home, dated 16.08.1976 had dismissed the RCOP as not maintainable. The same cannot be considered as the Learned Rent Controller was travelling beyond his discretion. The Learned Judge is not expected to encourage unlawful Act. The moment, the Learned Judge had knowledge of the fact that RCOP had been intiated based on a sale deed involving Wakf property as per the proforma under the Wakf Act as per G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home, dated 16.08.1976 of the Tamil 24/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 Nadu Government, the Learned Judge had dismissed the RCOP. There ends the issues. That cannot be treated as tenant disputing ownership which is estopped under Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act and also the Learned Rent Controller ignoring the provisions of the Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.
32.The Learned Rent Controller, Vellore by dismissing the RCOP had rightly acted as per G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home, dated 16.08.1976 in the light of the specific evidence of R.W.2/Wakf Inspector were Entry 84 mentions that the College is covered under the Wakf Act and claim of the vendor of the sale deed in favour of the first Petitioner/Basheer Ahamed in RCOP stating that the College is a private Trust was found out to be not true. That cannot be considered that the Learned Rent Controller having exceeded his limit or mis-directing himself travelling beyond his discretion as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act.
33.The Learned Judge is expected to decide a case based on the dispute where one of the party to dispute claims that the dispute cannot be 25/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 resolved in the forum, in which it had been filed and claims that it is not maintainable in the forum wherein the dispute is pending. It is for the presiding Judge to consider the maintainability of the case at the top most priority to dispose the case before ever taking the resolution of dispute.
34.Here, the Learned Judge had acted fairly in the light of G.O.Ms.No.2000, Home, dated 16.08.1976.Therefore, it cannot be considered as the Learned Rent Controller, Vellore had travelled beyond his discretion or mis-directed himself by all means, the rent control proceedings is not maintainable.
35.The Learned Judge had taken judicial notice of the fact that the College is covered under Wakf Act and had rightly dismissed the claim. Therefore, the question of fact decided by the Learned Rent Controller had been upheld by the Learned Sub Judge, Vellore in RCA. Therefore, there is no perverse finding in these cases. For this Court to exercise the discretion under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act to interfere with the findings of the Learned Rent Controller. 26/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020
36.In the light of the above discussions, the rulings submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners in
(i)E.Chitra Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited [(2022) 8 MLJ 237];
(ii)Om Prakash and Others Vs. Mishri Lal (Dead) represented by his LR.Savitri Devi and Others [AIR 2017 SC 1597);
(iii)Keshar Bai Vs. Chhunulal, in C.A.No.106 of 2014 and
(iv)Appeal (Civil) No.3965 of 1999 in the case of Sheela and Others Vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash. will not help the Petitioner's case. The contention of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners invoking Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act will not help the case as far as the facts in these cases are cocerned. Therefore, these revisions fails.
37. The point for consideration is answered in favour of the Respondent and against the Revision Petitioners.
In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed as having no merits. No costs.
21.12.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes/No jas 27/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP., J.
jas To The Appellate Authority-cum-Principal Subordinate Court, Vellore.
Order made in CRP.Nos.1382 & 1383 of 2020 21.12.2023 28/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis