Madras High Court
Anjugam vs M.Kaliyan (Died) on 26 November, 2021
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1957 of 2008
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 26.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1957 of 2008
1.Anjugam,
W/o.Kaliyan
2.Kaliyan,
S/o.Mayavan .. Petitioner/Appellant/
Petitioner/Landlord
-vs-
1.M.Kaliyan (Died) .. Respondent/Respondent/
Respondent/Tenant
2.K.Renganayaki
3.K.Arumugan
4.K.Vanitha .. Respondents 2 to 4
[RR 2 to 4 are brought on records as LRs of the
deceased R1 vide order dated 04.03.2021 made
in C.M.P.(MD) Nos.5782 to 5784 of 2019 in
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1957 of 2008]
Prayer :- Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Building
Lease and Rental Control Act to set aside the fair order and decretal order
dated 10.12.2007 in R.C.A.No.30 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Control
Appellate Authority (Principal Sub-Judge), Trichirappalli confirming the
fair and decretal order in R.C.O.P.No.175 of 2002 on the file of the Rent
Controller (Additional District Munsif), Trichirappalli.
_________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1957 of 2008
For Petitioners : Mr.Kavin Prasad
for M/s.Veera Associates
For RR 2 to 4 : Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan
******
ORDER
The petitioners, as landlords of the demised premises, had filed
R.C.O.P.No.175 of 2002 on the file of the Rent Controller (District
Munsif), Trichy.
2.The said petition was dismissed by judgment and decree dated
24.06.2005 and the subsequent appeal in R.C.A.No.30 of 2005 on the file
of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub-Judge),
Trichirappalli also ended in dismissal by judgment and decree dated
10.12.2007. Challenging this concurrent order, the landlords are before
this Court.
3.The facts in brief are as follows:-
3.1.The petitioners herein had filed a petition seeking to evict the
deceased 1st respondent from the demised premises on the grounds of
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1957 of 2008
owners occupation and wilful default. In the petition, the petitioners
would submit that the property belonged to one Mayavan, who was the
father of the 2nd petitioner and father-in-law of the 1st petitioner. The
deceased 1st respondent is none other than the maternal uncle of the 2nd
petitioner. The property was settled by the 1st petitioner's father-in-law in
favour of the 1st petitioner. The petitioners were living in the petition
mentioned property till 1986 and thereafter, they have left for
Ulundurpet, on account of their avocation. The monthly rent was earlier
fixed as Rs.100/- and later it was enhanced to Rs.200/- in 1992.
3.2.It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased 1 st respondent
had executed a document on 07.01.1992 styled as “tPl;L thlif
urPJ” in favour of the 2nd petitioner, who is none other than the husband
of the 1st petitioner. The Deed clearly described the 1st petitioner as the
owner of the property. The deceased 1st respondent had failed to pay the
agreed rent and when the rent was asked, he had denied the relationship
of landlord and tenant.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1957 of 2008
4.The Rent Controller (District Munsif), Trichy, after hearing both
the parties, had come to the conclusion that the petitioners have not been
able to prove, by any shred of evidence, their right and title to the
petition property. Therefore, there was no question of the deceased 1 st
respondent vacating the premises on the ground of wilful default or
owners occupation. The Court below concurred with the finding of the
trial court and therefore, aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before
this Court.
5.Mr.Kavin Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would reiterate the contentions raised in the grounds of revision.
6.Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 2 to 4 prayed for confirming the concurrent judgment and
decree of the court below.
7.Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the records.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1957 of 2008
8.The petitioners have come forward with the case that the
property was settled on the 1st petitioner by her father-in-law, viz., the 2nd
petitioner's father. The petitioners have not been able to file any
document to show as to how they have title to the property. In fact,
Ex.A1, dated 07.01.1992, which was originally marked, has thereafter
been rejected by the Court, since the said document was not registered.
However, the deceased 1st respondent has filed documents to show his
occupation and to prove that he is residing in the property as the owner,
produced Ex.B1, Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 viz., house tax receipts, electricity
card, election card etc. The petitioners have miserably failed to prove
that they are the landlords in respect of the suit property and that the
deceased 1st respondent/defendant is their tenant.
9.In the absence of such proof, the order passed by the learned
Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub-Judge), Trichirappalli,
dated 10.12.2017 in R.C.A.No.30 of 2005, confirming the fair and
decretal order, dated 24.06.2005 in R.C.O.P.No.175 of 2002 on the file of
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1957 of 2008
the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Trichy cannot be called
into question and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
26.11.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking Order
abr
Note:-
In view of the present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
Advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority
(Principal Sub-Judge), Trichirappalli.
2.The Rent Controller (District Munsif), Trichy.
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1957 of 2008
P.T.ASHA, J.
abr
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1957 of 2008
Dated: 26.11.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
