Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. ...The Special Tribunals are constituted only to resolve the limited disputes relating to eviction falling under Section 11 of the Act. Existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the contestants is sine qua non for Sections 11(2) to 11(8) to operate and for the Special Tribunals to have jurisdiction. Only when the landlord--tenant relationship in respect of the building exists, does and can the Special Tribunal have jurisdiction to consider a claim for eviction. Summary and expeditious procedure is prescribed for eviction only in cases where the landlord-tenant relationship exists and the dispute regarding eviction is between the landlord and the tenant. Existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the claimant/landlord and respondent/tenant is thus essential, to confer jurisdiction on the Rent Control Authorities.

In that particular case, the Division Bench considered the matter, apart from the belated raising of pleadings regarding denial of title, it was found that the tenant was admitted attornment and payment of rent to the landlord. In such circumstances, landlord-tenant relationship cannot be questioned and denial of title by the tenant was held not bona fide. Application of second proviso and interpretation of the same cannot be diverted from the facts of each case. The Division Bench held that while considering the bona fides of the question regarding landlord-tenant relationship, whether such contention was bona fide or not, existence of the landlord-tenant relationship etc. can be looked into. If it is proved that the above contention is bona fide and there was actual landlord-tenant relationship, there is no necessity to relegate the matter to the civil Court. Merely by raising such a contention, the matter need not be relegated to the civil Court. The rent control Court is entitled and bound to decide the question whether alleged contention regarding denial of title consequent to absence of landlord-tenant relationship and claim of permanent tenancy is bona fide or not. For finding out bona fide of the claim, Rent Control Court only need look into the materials placed before it. Considering the reasonings of the dicta of Full Bench in Parthakumar's case (supra) and of the Division Bench in Narayan Murti's case (supra), we are of the opinion that there is no conflict. Dicta made in those two decisions are not at variance. Only application of the principle on the facts of those cases was different. We answer the required question accordingly. In view of the above answer, the question referred need not be referred again to the Full Bench opinion.

5. Now, we may consider the application of the above section on the facts of this case. Predecessor of the respondent filed an application for eviction of the counter petitioner contending that the schedule building T.C. No. 13/121 was owned by him and it was taken by the counter petitioner for a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- from 1970 and has executed a rent deed dated 10-11-1970, Ext.A1 deed. Counter petitioner has committed default in payment of rent for the last seven years and he has no building of his own in the city and he wants the building for own use and, therefore, the rent control petition was filed. The counter petitioner alleged before the rent control Court that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and himself. It is also contended that Ext.A1 rent deed is not genuine and shall not be relied on. It is further contended that in an earlier rent control proceedings between the same parties, it was found that there is no landlord-tenant relationship and, therefore, the present petition filed is hit by res judicata and Section 15 of the Act. After consideration of the evidence, the Rent Control Court found that Ext.A2 deed is a genuine document. Present revision petitioner was examined as PW2 in a small cause suit filed by one Kanakamma and the very same rent deed executed by the counter petitioner in favour of the petitioner was produced in that case. As Ext.A4 the very same rent deed is marked as Ext.A1 and in view of the rent deed executed, it cannot be stated that there is no landlord-tenant relationship and no bona fide disputes are raised regarding title. However, on merit, the rent control Court found that bona fide need for own occupation was not proved and petition for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act was dismissed, but, found that there was arrears of rent and eviction was ordered under Section 11(2)(b). The above order was upheld by the appellate authority. If the rent deed was genuine, there is landlord-tenant relationship and dispute regarding title has no bona fide. None of the observations in Parthakumar's case 2006 AIHC 2161 (supra) or Narayan Murti's case (supra) supports the contentions of the revision petitioners.

6. The real contention raised by the revision petitioners is that respondents claiming to be landlords cannot raise a contention that there is landlord-tenant relationship in view of Section 15 of the Act. Earlier, an eviction application was filed by the predecessor of the respondent, the original landlord as R.C.P. No. 41 of 1989. Ext.A1 deed was not marked by adducing evidence. The rent control Court in that case found that the landlord has got clear title over the property. Hence, denial of proprietary title is not bona fide, but, at the same time, it was also held that the petitioner failed to prove the landlord-tenant relationship. Since landlord-tenant relationship was not proved, the rent control petition was dismissed. That petition was also filed only under Section 11(2) and (3) of the Act. In appeal, the landlord tried to mark the present Ext.A1 deed by filing a petition. The appellate authority did not allow the landlord to produce the same as it was not produced before the rent control Court. Further, it was also observed that in the above alleged rent deed building number is mentioned as T.C. No. 12/71 whereas number of the petition schedule building is T.C. No. 13/121. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed after rejecting the petition to accept the rent deed as additional evidence as it was not marked in evidence before the Rent Controller and in view of the difference in the number of the building. The rent control Court in R.C.P. No. 41 of 1989 (previous petition between the same set of parties) even though found that the petitioner in that case though able to prove that there is title to the property, he failed to prove that there is existence of landlord-tenant relationship. Contention of the counter petitioner (present revision petitioner) that they have got kudikidappu right was also not accepted. But, after holding so, the rent control Court held as follows: