Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. I have heard Mr. Chidambarasubramaniam for the petitioner and Mr. M.N. Muthukumaran for the respondent/ landlord. Mr. Chidambarasubramaniam argued that the respondent has not proved the relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the petitioner herein-and therefore, the Appellate Authority ought to have dismissed the Rent Control Appeal. He further contended that the Appellate Authority has erred in passing the order of eviction, especially when the landlord has not chosen to examine his vendor. He has further submitted that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the revision petitioner and the respondent herein ceased the exist as early as on 1.2.1984 i.e., the date of execution of the sale agreement by the revision petitioner's erstwhile landlord in respect of the petition mentioned premises and since the respondent/landlord has, at no point of time, received any rent from the revision petitioner, the respondent is not entitled to obtain an order of eviction against the revision petitioner herein. According to Mr. Chidambarasubramaniam, the respondent has failed to prove the attornment of tenancy. He also contended that the Appellate Authority has failed to note that the sale agreement dated 1.2.1984 between the revision petitioner and the vendor of the respondent has been filed along with the plaint in O.S.276 of 1984. He has submitted that the Appellate Authority has decided all the issue involved in the suit O.S.276 of 1984 and passed the order of eviction against the revision petitioner herein. It is contended that the tenant has not committed default in payment of rent. Likewise, it is contended that the respondent has not proved his bona fide in respect of his request for eviction on the ground of personal occupation. Per contra, Mr. M. N. Muthukumaran, contended that the order of the Appellate Authority ordering eviction is perfectly valid, legal and is not liable to be interested with by this Court.

6. I have been taken through the entire pleading filed by both the parties and also the evidence let in, both oral and documentary and the judgments which are impugned in this civil revision petition. At the time of hearing, the plaint filed in O.S.276 of 1984 by the petitioner herein, before the Sub Judge, Vellore and the written statement filed by the owner of the property Dr. Margaret Mathaniel and the purchaser of the same viz., the respondent herein and the copy of the receipt dated 1.2.1984 (which has already been filed as document in the civil suit O. S. No. 276 of 1984) have been placed before me. I gave an anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised by both the parties. I am unable to countenance any of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the tenant for the reasons stated infra. It is the specific case of the petitioner/tenant that the relationship of landlord and tenant had come to an end as she entered into an agreement to purchase the property along with two others and the requirement of the building for own occupation by the respondent is not bona fide. According to the respondent/landlord, the relationship between the landlord and the tenant still continues and the tenant has committed default in payment of rent even after giving two notices of the purchase of the property by the respondent herein.

It is seen from the above recent that there is nothing to show that parties have agreed that the relationship of landlord and tenant should cease and the tenant's possession should be traced only to the agreement of sale. In my opinion, by merely entering into an agreement of sale, the tenant cannot acquire any right in the property. If possession is traceable to the agreement of sale, then such possession can be sustained on the basis of the principle of part-performance under Section 53-A of T. P. Act. In this case, even if there has been an agreement of sale and advance has been paid in pursuance of that agreement, no agreement has been filed before the rent control court and none of the parties have spoken to about the agreement containing a term putting an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant and that the continued possession by the tenant should be traced only to the agreement of sale. The agreement of sale does not refer to the fact that the tenant's possession is traceable to the lease agreement. Therefore, I am of the view that the possession of the petitioner/tenant cannot now be treated as possession under the agreement of sale. Admittedly, the tenant has not paid the rent even after the notice was issued to her. Therefore, the claim of the tenant that under the agreement the liability to pay the rent has ceased, cannot at all be accepted. The finding of the Rent Controller, in my opinion, is clearly wrong. The Rent Controller is also clearly in error in holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant has ceased and therefore, there is no liability to pay the rent, and the Appellate Authority, in my opinion, is right in holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant has not ceased and therefore, the liability to pay the rent continues and the default in payment of rent is wilful. I am in entire agreement with the findings of the Appellate Authority in this regard. The Appellate Authority has also found the other issues in favour of the respondent/landlord. I do not see any error in the said findings, of the Appellate Authority and therefore, the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Authority has to be sustained, for the other reasons given infra.

I am of the same view that an oral agreement to sell would not terminate the landlord-tenant relationship and even if there was an agreement of sale it had to be in writing and the agreement itself should, in clear terms, specify that the landlord-tenant relationship was being terminated and that there was no future liability on the part of the tenant to pay rent to the landlord and in the absence of such specific recitals in the written agreement the mere oral agreement of sale would not exonerate the tenant from continuing to pay rent to the landlord. In this case, admittedly, the tenant has not paid any rent to the respondent herein, even after the notice. The explanation offered by the petitioner herein is not at all acceptable.