Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. These civil revision petitions have been filed by the landlords/ landlady, against the common judgment and decree, dated 27.2.1998 and made in R.C.A.Nos. 10 to 13 of 1995 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Judge), Thiruvannamalai, confirming the common order and decretal order, dated 10.7.1995 and made M.P.No. 73 of 1987 in R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 1987; R.C.O.P.Nos. 2 of 1994, 2 of 1987 and 2 of 1993 respectively, on the file of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Thiruvannamalai.

5. The petitioner in R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 1993 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Thiruvannamalai, is Geetha, the purchaser of the demised premises from its owners, Rajan Babu, Sundaramurthy and Gopalsamy, the petitioners 1 to 3 in R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 1987, on the file of the said court.

6. R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 1994 was filed by the landlady referred to above, against respondents 1 and 2, Sankaran and his son Elangovan, for fixation of fair rent for the demised premises.

7. The respective respondents in all the petitions referred to above resisted the claim made by the petitioners in the respective petitions, on the following grounds: The father of the petitioners 1 to 3 in R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 1987, T.S. Ramu Mudaliar, was the original owner of the demised premises and he let out the said premises to Sankaran, the 1st respondent and his brothers Ramu Pillai and Radhakrishnan on an annual rent of Rs. 365. The lease by T.S. Ramu Mudaliar in favour of the 1st respondent and his brothers in the year 1936 was only vacant site, measuring 73 feet 9 inches North-South and 48 feet 6 inches East-West in T.S.No. 922 in Ward No. 4, Block No. 17 in Thiruvannamalai Town. The lease was oral. The rent was enhanced periodically and at the time of filing the Rent Control Petition, the rent payable was Rs. 1,800 per annum. The 1st respondent and his brothers constructed pucca building roofed with zinc sheets in the demised vacant site, measuring 40 feet, 3 inches East-West and 30 feet North-South, on the northern portion of the vacant site and another building measuring 43 feet, 9 inches North-South and 13 feet, 9 inches East-West on the Eastern portion of the said vacant site, roofed with zinc sheets. A well was dug in the Southwestern portion apart from constructing parapet walls with cement plastering around the well. A concrete overhead water tank, a tub and a dry latrine were also constructed in the said vacant site at a cost of Rs. 60,000. An electric service connection bearing SC.No. 10019 was obtained in the name of Ramu Pillai. An Oil Crusher and rice flour huller were also installed in the above said constructions. T.S. Ramu Mudaliar died in the year 1980. The demised premises was also the subject matter of partition among Ramu Pillai, Sankaran, the 1st respondent, and Radhakrishnan and the demised premises has been allotted to the share of the 1st respondent in R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 1987. The petitioners 1 to 3 in R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 1987 are aware of the above said partition and allotment of the demised premises to the 1st respondent in R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 1987. The 1st respondent continued to pay annual rent of Rs. 1,800 to the petitioners 1 to 3 in R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 1987 after the death of T.S. Ramu Mudaliar, in the year 1980. The 1st respondent and his brothers have to pay Municipal Tax for the demised premises, as per the terms of lease and accordingly they were paying Municipal Tax for the demised premises and after allotment of the said premises to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent is paying the Municipal Tax for the demised premises to the Municipality. The 1st respondent has been paying rent for the demised premises at Rs. 1,800 per annum from 1.3.1980 every year, but the petitioners 1 to 3 in R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 1987 were not in the habit of issuing receipt for the rent paid from 1.3.1980. The 1st respondent has not committed wilful default in the payment of rent as claimed by the petitioners 1 to 3. The petitioners 1 to 3 demanded advance of Rs. 10,000 and rent of Rs. 12,000 per annum for the demised premises from the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent was not agreeable to the same. The 1st respondent has not sublet the demised premises to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is running a provision store at door No. 24-D, Sivanpatha Street which premises also originally belonged to the petitioners 1 to 3 and sold to one Murugaiyan. The 2nd respondent in R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 1987 has nothing to do with this premises described in the petition. The vacant site, which is situate in T.S.No. 922, Thiruvannamalai Town alone was leased out by the petitioners 1 to 3 and not any building and, therefore, the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act will not apply to the said premises.

12. After considering the material evidence available on record, the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Thiruvannamalai, dismissed the petitions in R.C.O.P.No. 2 of 1987, I.A.No. 73 of 1987 in R.C.O.P.Nos. 2 of 1987, 2 of 1993 and 2 of 1994. Aggrieved at the said common order of the learned Rent Controller, Thiruvannamalai, the petitioners in each of the petitions referred to above, as appellants, preferred appeals in R.C.A.Nos. 12 of 1995, 10 of 1995, 13 of 1995 and 11 of 1995, respectively, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Judge), Thiruvannamalai. After considering the submissions made on both sides and in the light of the material evidence available on record, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Judge), Thiruvannamalai, has concurred with the findings of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Thiruvannamalai and dismissed the rent control appeals referred to above. Aggrieved at the common judgment and decree dated 27.2.1998 and made in R.C.A.Nos. 12 of 1995, 10 of 1995, 13 of 1995 and 11 of 1995, the appellants in each of the rent control appeals, as revision petitioners, have preferred the civil revision petitions in C.R.P.Nos. 1255, 1256, 1253 and 1254 of 1998, respectively, on the file of this Court.

15. The admissions made by R.Ws.2 and 3 would disclose that it was agreed even in the year 1936 when the demised premises was leased out to Ramu Pillai. Sankaran and Radhakrishnan that the said lessees have to pay municipal tax for the leasehold property bearing new door No. 24. Exs.B-10, B-11, B-12 and B-13 (for the first half of 1988-89 to second half of 1989-90) and B-14 (for the first and second half of 1990-91) are the house tax receipts issued in the name of T.S. Ramu Mudaliar, on 4.3.1985, 29.2.1983, 17.3.1983, 6.7.1990 and 20.3.1991 by the Thiruvannamalai Municipality for new door No. 24, Sivanpatha Street, Thiruvannamalai. Ex.B-8 the property tax receipt issued for payment of house tax for door No. 24, on 29.3.1993 in the name of Geetha, the 4th revision petitioner in C.R.P.No. 1255 of 1998. The above said admissions were made by Sankaran or his son Elangovan in connection with the demised premises. It is admitted by R.Ws.2 and 3 that the house tax for the building bearing new door No. 24, viz., for the demised premises has to be paid by the lessee even according to the condition imposed at the time of leasing the demised premises by T.S. Ramu Mudaliar, orally in the year 1936. Therefore, it is evident that the lessor and the lessees were aware that there is some superstructure standing in the leasehold property even at the time of commencement of lease and the lessee has to pay house tax for the abovesaid superstructure standing thereon.