Madras High Court
S. N. Karunanithi vs M. Ramakrishnan on 19 September, 2022
C.R.P. No.327 of 2020 & CMP No.1667 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
CRP No.327 of 2020
and
CMP No.1667 of 2020
1. S. N. Karunanithi
2. S.K. Lakshmi @ Parameswari ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. M. Ramakrishnan
2. V. Ranika ... Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India against the fair and decretal order dated 18.07.2019 in R.C.A.
No.6 of 2016 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, (Rent Control Appellate
Authority), Salem, upholding fair and decretal order dated 20.04.2015 in
R.C.O.P. No.21 of 2009, on the file of I Additional District Munsic (Rent
Controller) Salem.
For Petitioners : Mr. R. Vivekanandan
for M/s. R. Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr. T. Murugamanickam
Senior Counsel
for M/s. Zeenath Begum
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No.327 of 2020 & CMP No.1667 of 2020
ORDER
This revision petition is filed against the orders passed by the
Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No.6 of 2016, dated
18.07.2019, upholding the orders of the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.
No.21 of 2009 dated 20.04.2015.
2. The revision petitioners are the tenants in the suit premises.
The respondents/landlords filed R.C.O.P. No.21 of 2009 before the I
Additional District Munsif/Rent Controller, Salem for the eviction of the
present petitioners under Section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and Section 151 CPC contending that
the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rents. The said
petition was allowed by the rent controller after full contest vide his
orders dated 20.04.2015. He also directed the petitioners/tenants to
vacate the premises within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order. Thereafter, the tenants filed R.C.A.
No.6/2016. The said appeal was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No.327 of 2020 & CMP No.1667 of 2020
Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Salem, vide his orders dated
18.07.2019. Now the present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the
orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
3. It is seen from the records that the landlords filed O.S.
No.244/2009 against the tenants for recovery of rental arrears. The said
suit was decreed vide decree and judgment (Ex.P9 & Ex.P10) dated
04.09.2012 against which the tenants filed an appeal in A.S. No. 59/2013
before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem. The said Appeal Suit was
dismissed on 30.10.2014. The tenants have taken up a plea in the Rent
Control Proceedings that the sale deed in respect of the tenanted premises
was obtained by the respondents/landlords by illegal means and that there
was no landlord-tenant relationship between them and therefore it cannot
be stated that the tenants have committed wilful default in payment of
rents. However, this contention of the tenants was not accepted by both
the courts below on the following grounds.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No.327 of 2020 & CMP No.1667 of 2020
1) No acceptable oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the
tenants to substantiate that the sale deed was gotten by illegal
methods.
2) The denial of title by the tenants is not bona fide.
3) Even after the dismissal of A.S. No.59/2013, the tenants had
committed wilful default in payment of rents.
4. Once the title of the landlords is denied by the tenants, he is
liable to be evicted. In the instant case, absolutely there is no evidence to
show that there is no relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties.
Though it was contended by the tenants that the sale deed in respect of the
suit property was obtained by the landlords by fraudulent means, the
tenants did not take any legal action to set aside the said sale deed.
Therefore, both the courts below were right in holding that the
respondents' denial of title of the landlords is not bona fide. It is seen
from the records that the tenants/revision petitioners did not pay rents and
this aspect has been dealt with in extenso by both the courts below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No.327 of 2020 & CMP No.1667 of 2020
5. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to allow this
Civil Revision Petition and accordingly the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. In the result,
(i) The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(ii) The orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority
(Principal Sub Judge), Salem, dated 18.07.2019, in R.C.A. No.6 of 2016,
and the orders dated 20.04.2015 passed in R.C.O.P. No.21 of 2009 by the
Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif), Salem, are upheld.
19.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking/non speaking
bga
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No.327 of 2020 & CMP No.1667 of 2020
R.HEMALATHA, J.,
bga
To
1. The Rent Controller (I Additional District Munsif), Salem.
2. Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Judge), Salem.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
CRP No.327 of 2020
and
CMP No.1667 of 2020
19.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
