Madras High Court
M.Vasantha vs Nadarajan on 10 March, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2327 of
2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.03.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2327 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.14650 of 2020
M.Vasantha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Nadarajan
2. Manohar
3. Baskar
4. Shanthi
5. Chithra
6. Sambath
7. Banumathi
8. Sumathi ... Respondents
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to set aside the decree and Judgment dated 21.12.2020 passed in
E.A.No.24 of 2020 in E.P.No.07 of 2016 in H.R.C.O.P.No.01 of 2002 on the
file of the Learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kumara Devan
For R1 : Mr.P.Veeraragavan
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/11
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2327 of
2020
For R2 to R8 : Mr.A.Thameem Moideen
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the decree and
Judgment dated 21.12.2020 passed in E.A.No.24 of 2020 in E.P.No.07 of
2016 in H.R.C.O.P.No.01 of 2002 on the file of the Learned Principal District
Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents 2 to 8 are the
brothers and sisters of the petitioner. The petitioner's father one Mr.Saravanan
was running a Printing Press business in the 1 st respondent's premises. After
his death, his wife Saroja, the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 8 were jointly
running the above said Printing Press Business at the 1 st respondent's
premises. The said Printing Press Business is the joint family business and
even after the petitioner's marriage she jointly carried the above joint family
business. In the year 2011, the said Saroja died leaving the petitioner and the
respondents 2 to 8 as her legal heirs and after which the respondents 2 to 8
are not allowing the petitioner to participate in her family business. Hence,
there was a dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 8 and the
petitioner gradually reduced to have relationship with them.
3. In the year 2020, the petitioner came to know about the pending
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2327 of
proceedings against the 1st respondent with the respondents 2 to 8 regarding
the eviction of 1st respondent's premises where the petitioner's joint family
business carried on. Thereafter, the petitioner immediately contacted the
respondents 2 to 8 regarding the said proceedings but they refused to answer
to her properly. After her several efforts and with the help of her counsel, she
came to know that the 1st respondent has filed a petition to evict her mother
from the 1st respondent's property and her mother went on appeal in
R.C.A.No.1 of 2005. The petitioner was not aware of the said proceedings till
filing of the petition in E.A.No.24 of 2020 in E.P.No.7 of 2016 in
H.R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Learned Principal District Munsif,
Tiruvannamalai.
4. After the death of the petitioner's mother, the respondents 2 to 8
herein impleaded themselves as the legal heirs of the petitioner's mother by
wantonly obtaining the legal heirs certificate without including the petitioner's
name as one of the legal heirs of her mother. Thereafter, the respondents 2 to
8 conducted the case in R.C.A.No.1 of 2005 without the knowledge of the
petitioner and the same was ordered in favour of the 1 st respondent herein.
Based on the said order, the 1st respondent filed an Execution Petition in
E.P.No.7 of 2016 in H.R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2002 before the Rent Controller at
Tiruvannamalai. The 1st respondent was very well aware of that the petitioner
herein also actively participated in the joint family business at the said
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2327 of
premises but he also not impleaded the petitioner as a respondent in the said
Execution Petition. The petitioner after knowing about the fraud committed by
the respondents 2 to 8 by obtaining a legal heirs certificate without adding her
name in the same and all the above litigations, she filed an implead petition in
E.A.No.24 of 2020 in E.P.No.7 of 2016 in H.R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2002 before the
Learned Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai, seeking to implead her as
Respondent No.9 in the said Execution Petition.
5. The 1st respondent who is the owner of the said premises filed a
counter affidavit before the Court below stating that as per the order of this
Court in C.R.P.No.1222 of 2016 dated 29.08.2019, the said premises should
be vacated by the legal heirs of the deceased Saroja on or before 28.09.2019,
and the said Revision Petition was preferred by the respondents 2 to 8 against
the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruvannamalai, in
R.C.A.No.1 of 2005 dated 20.08.2015 confirming the order of the Rent
Controller, Tiruvannamalai in H.R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2002 dated 04.02.2005. The
respondents 2 to 8 alone have been declared to be the legal heirs of deceased
Saroja and the petitioner's name is not found in the said Legal Heir Certificate.
It was further stated that as per the provisions of Rent Control Act, the legal
heir of the tenant as defined under the Rent Control Act is the one who
assisted the tenant in carrying on the business in the demised premises.
Hence, the petitioner herein who never assisted the deceased tenant cannot be
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2327 of
recorded as the legal heir of the deceased tenant, and sought for dismissal of
the implead petition.
6. The 2nd respondent who is one of the brothers of the petitioner also
filed a counter affidavit before the Court below stating that the averments
contained in the implead petition that the petitioner was participating in the
press business even after her marriage are absolutely false and she had no
business interest with that of the other respondents and she left
Tiruvannamalai after marriage and she permanently settled at Kanchipuram
and she never turned back at any point of time, and sought for dismissal of the
implead petition.
7. The Court below after hearing the counsels appeared on both sides
dismissed the Implead petition on 21.12.2020. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner has filed this revision petition before this Court.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel
for the respondents, and perused the materials available on record.
9. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the 1 st respondent is the
owner of the petition premises and he rented out the same to one Saravanan
who is the father of the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 8 herein. The said
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2327 of
Saravanan died in the year 1987 and after his demise his wife Saroja was
running a Printing Press business in the 1st respondent's premises and paying
the rent of Rs.1,000/- per month. From the month of December 2001, the said
Saroja had committed default in payment of rent. Hence the 1 st respondent /
landlord filed H.R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2002 before the Rent Controller at
Tiruvannamalai, seeking to evict the tenant Saroja from the petition premises.
The said petition was allowed on 04.02.2005 directing the tenant to surrender
the possession of the premises to the landlord within two months. As against
which, the tenant Saroja had filed R.C.A.No.1 of 2005 before the Principal
Subordinate Judge at Tiruvannamalai and the same was dismissed on
20.08.2015 confirming the order of the Rent Controller, Tiruvannamalai.
10. It is further seen that the 1 st respondent filed an Execution Petition in
E.P.No.7 of 2016 to execute the order passed in H.R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2002 and
subsequently the petitioner herein who is one of the legal heirs of the deceased
Saroja filed E.P.No.24 of 2020 to implead her as 9 th respondent in the said
Execution Petition, wherein, the petitioner has claimed that after the death of
her father, she, her mother and the respondents 2 to 8 alone were running the
above said Printing Press Business at the 1st respondent premises and shared
the income derived from the said business. Hence she also to be impleaded as
one of the party in the said Execution Petition. The respondents 2 to 8 have
claimed before the Court below that the petitioner had never participated in the
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2327 of
joint family business and in fact she had no business interest with that of the
other respondents. After her marriage, she permanently settled at
Kanchipuram and thereafter she never turned back at any point of time.
11. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent / landlord submits that
even though the petitioner is one of the legal heirs of the deceased Saroja, she
was not permitted to carry the above joint family business after the death of her
mother and she is not an active member of the said business. Even she has
got any right over the said business, it is for her to claim the same before the
appropriate forum and not in the R.C.O.P proceedings, wherein, the dispute is
regarding the tenancy between the landlord and the tenants. Further, the
learned counsel for the landlord submits that even assuming that the petitioner
is one of the party to the said business, the Rent Controller at Tiruvannamali
has ordered eviction to evict the tenants and the same was also confirmed by
the Rent Control Appellate Authority at Tiruvannamalai. Hence the petitioner
cannot be permitted to be impleaded her as one of the party to the
proceedings. Moreover, he submits that the Court below have granted two
months time to vacate the premises and the respondents 2 to 8 have asked six
months time to vacate the same. The six months time had expired long ago. At
this point of time, the petitioner seeks impleadment to protract the proceedings.
12. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 1 st
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2327 of
respondent / landlord, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner has got any
right over the said business as one of the legal heirs of the deceased Saroja,
she has to proceed against her brothers and sisters i.e. the respondents 2 to 8
herein and not to file a petition to implead her as a party in this proceedings.
Further, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the landlord, the petitioner
cannot claim any right over the said business at this belated stage as already
the Court has passed an order of eviction on the ground that the petitioner has
not produced any material to show that she is one of the legal heirs of the
deceased and she had jointly participated in the said business along with the
respondents 2 to 8. Moreover, the submissions made by the petitioner in her
petition that after her marriage, she shifted her place of residence to the
Kancheepuram District and every year i.e. during the time of Ayutha Pooja
Festival she used to go through the accounts of the said joint family business
and profits derived if any would be shared to her by the respondents 2 to 8
would show that the petitioner has not actively participated in the said business
and only to protract the proceedings she has filed a petition before the Court
below to implead her as a party to the proceedings. When that being case, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the Court below.
13. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with a direction
to the respondents 2 to 8 / tenants to vacate the petition premises and hand
over the same to the 1st respondent / landlord on or before 30th June 2021,
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2327 of
failing which, the 1st respondent / landlord can take the Assistance of Police to
vacate the tenants. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition
is closed.
10.03.2021
raja
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
To
The Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2327 of
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J.,
raja
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2327 of 2020
and
C.M.P.No.14650 of 2020
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(NPD).No.2327 of
10.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
