Madras High Court
M/S.Madarasa Jamalia Wakf Trust vs L.Jebaraj on 23 September, 2021
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.1059, 1062, 1063, 1070 and 1065 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.8447 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.1059, 1062, 1063, 1070 and 1065 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.8447 of 2021
M/s.Madarasa Jamalia Wakf Trust
Represented by its Mutthavalli,
M.J.S.Sultan,
No.30, Perambur High Road,
Chennai - 600 012. ... Petitioner
(in all CRPS)
versus
1.L.Jebaraj
2.Sithy Saffitha ... Respondents
(in all CRPS)
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under
Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act XVII
of 1960, to set aside the judgments and decrees dated 16.02.2021 and passed
in R.C.A.Nos. 5, 8, 9, 6 and 7 of 2020 respectively on the file of VIII Court
of Small Causes, Chennai, confirming the orders and decrees dated
26.11.2019 passed in M.P.Nos.246, 244, 245, 247 and 243 of 2019 in
R.C.O.P.No.1351 of 2018, 740 of 2018, 1150 of 2018, 140 of 2019 and 739
of 2018 respectively, on the file of the XI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.1059, 1062, 1063, 1070 and 1065 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.8447 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.P.B.Balaji
(in all CRPS)
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.Vikram Veerasamy
(in all CRPS)
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.S.Vijay Ganesh
(in all CRPS)
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions are filed to set aside the
judgments of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in
R.C.A.Nos. 5, 8, 9, 6 and 7 of 2020 dated 16.02.2021, confirming the orders
of the learned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in M.P.Nos.246,
244, 245, 247 and 243 of 2019 in R.C.O.P.No.1351 of 2018, 740 of 2018,
1150 of 2018, 140 of 2019 and 739 of 2018 respectively, dated 26.11.2019.
2. The matter involved in all these Civil Revision Petitions
are on the limited scope as to whether in the proceedings initiated under
Section 10(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
by a tenant against the sub tenant, the owner of the building is a proper and
necessary party.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.1059, 1062, 1063, 1070 and 1065 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.8447 of 2021
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the
petitioner is the owner of the property concerned in these Civil Revision
Petitions. In this regard, the petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.3146 of 2004
for ejectment and the tenant filed petition under Section 9 of the City
Tenancy Protection Act. This suit was partly decreed. Two appeals in
A.S.Nos.453 of 2011 and 47 of 2013 were preferred and that were also
dismissed. Against which, the Second Appeal filed in S.A.No.286 of 2016
and that is pending.
4. Both the Courts found that, the petitioner is the owner of
the land and superstructure. Meanwhile, the first respondent, who is the
tenant under petitioner had sublet the premises to the second respondent,
without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner. Not only that, the first
respondent filed R.C.O.P.Nos.140 of 2019, 740 of 2018, 1150 of 2018, 140
of 2019 and 739 of 2018 against the sub-tenant for eviction. In those
R.C.O.Ps, the petitioner filed M.P.Nos.247, 244, 245, 247 and 243 of 2019
for impleading him, as proper and necessary party for the effective
adjudication of the matter in dispute. The learned Rent Controller has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.1059, 1062, 1063, 1070 and 1065 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.8447 of 2021
dismissed the impleading petitions and that was confirmed by the learned
Rent Control Appellate Authority. Against the said orders, these Civil
Revision Petitions are preferred.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that,
already two Civil Courts found that, the petitioner is the owner of the land
and building in respect of the properties covered under the Rent Control
proceedings. Admittedly, when the first respondent is the tenant under the
petitioner, the first respondent has no authority to sub-lease the premises to
the second respondent without the leave and consent of the petitioner.
Therefore, filing the Eviction Petition against the second respondent, is not
correct. If the proceeding is allowed to go without the petitioner being
impleaded, the petitioner's interest would be seriously prejudiced.
Supposing the first respondent file a petition for demolition and
reconstruction of the building against the sub tenant, if he gets an order in
favour of him, the ultimate sufferer would be the petitioner. So, saying, the
learned counsel for the petitioner prays for setting aside the orders of the
learned trial Judge and for allowing these petitions.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.1059, 1062, 1063, 1070 and 1065 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.8447 of 2021
6. In response, the learned counsel for the respondents
opposed these petitions on the ground that, the petitioner is not a proper and
necessary party in the Rent Control proceedings. The petitioner remedy lies
elsewhere, in the sense that he has to institute separate proceedings against
the respondents. He cannot seek to implead himself in the proceedings
between the main tenant and sub tenant. The petitioner is not a proper and
necessary party. When proceedings are pending between the main tenant
and sub tenant, as per Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and
Rent Control) Act, he, as the chief tenant, is entitled to receive the rent from
the sub tenant.
7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the
records.
8. It is gathered from the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties that, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that,
the petitioner is the owner of the land and building in respect of the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.1059, 1062, 1063, 1070 and 1065 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.8447 of 2021
property. Of course, there are litigations pending in the form of Second
Appeal. As of now, the petitioner is the owner of the land and building. The
first respondent is the tenant under the petitioner. It is the specific case of
the petitioner that, the first respondent, without the knowledge and consent
of the petitioner had sublet the premises to the second respondent and filed
the Eviction Petition. In the nature of the dispute between the parties, this
Court is in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that, if the main tenant and sub tenant get some adverse order
against the owner of the building, it is the owner of the building, who is
going to be affected at times beyond repair. Therefore, as the owner of the
building, this Court is of the considered view that, the petitioner must be
given an opportunity to contest the Rent Control Original Petitions filed by
the first respondent against the second respondent.
9. In such view of the matter, the orders passed by the
learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.C.A.Nos. 5, 8, 9,
6 and 7 of 2020 respectively dated 16.02.2021 are set aside and
M.P.Nos.246, 244, 245, 247 and 243 of 2019 in R.C.O.P.No.1351 of 2018,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.1059, 1062, 1063, 1070 and 1065 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.8447 of 2021
740 of 2018, 1150 of 2018, 140 of 2019 and 739 of 2018 respectively, are
allowed.
10. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. However, there
is no order as to costs.
23.09.2021
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
psa/sri
To
1.The VIII Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
2.The XI Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.1059, 1062, 1063, 1070 and 1065 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.8447 of 2021
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
psa / sri
C.R.P. (NPD) Nos.1059, 1062, 1063,
1070 and 1065 of 2021
and C.M.P. No.8447 of 2021
23.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
