Madras High Court
S.R.Sivakumar vs K.M.Ragavan on 19 April, 2023
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2288 and 2289 of 2022 and 729 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 19.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2288 and 2289 of 2022 and 729 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.10935 and 11318 of 2022 and 3417 of 2023
S.R.Sivakumar .. Petitioner in all the C.R.Ps.
Versus
K.M.Ragavan .. Respondent in all the C.R.Ps.
Prayer in C.R.P.(MD)No.2288 of 2022:- Petition filed under Section 25 of the
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, against the fair order and
ex-order dated 21.07.2022, passed in R.C.A.No.13 of 2021, on the file of the
Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai, confirming the fair order and ex-order dated
22.12.2020, passed in I.A.No.40 of 2020 in R.C.O.P.No.91 of 2012, on the file of the
Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai.
Prayer in C.R.P.(MD)No.2289 of 2022:- Petition filed under Section 25 of the
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, against the fair order and
ex-order dated 21.07.2022, passed in R.C.A.No.44 of 2021, on the file of the
Principal Subordinate Court, Madurai, confirming the fair order and ex-order dated
18.03.2021, passed in R.C.O.P.No.91 of 2012, on the file of the Additional District
Munsif Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2288 and 2289 of 2022 and 729 of 2023
Prayer in C.R.P.(MD)No.729 of 2023:- Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, against the Delivery Batta Order, dated 10.01.2023, passed in
E.P.No.101 of 2021 in R.C.O.P.No.91 of 2012, on the file of the Additional District
Munsif Court, Madurai Town.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Murugaboopathi Maharaja
in all the C.R.Ps.
For Respondent : Mr.J.Barathan
in C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2288 of 2022 &
729 of 2023
For Respondent : Mr.J.Barathan
in C.R.P.(MD)No.2289 of 2022 for Mr.S.R.Neelakantan
COMMON ORDER
Since the issues involved in the present Civil Revision Petitions are one and
the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2.C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2288 and 2289 of 2022 arise out of a common order dated
21.07.2022, passed in R.C.A.Nos.13 and 44 of 2021, respectively. R.C.A.No.13 of
2021 was filed against the fair and executable order dated 22.12.2020, passed in
I.A.No.40 of 2020 in R.C.O.P.No.91 of 2012, by the Additional Rent Controller
(Additional District Munsif), Madurai Town, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to
file additional counter affidavit in R.C.O.P.No.91 of 2012. R.C.A.No.44 of 2021 was
filed against the fair and executable order dated 18.03.2021, passed in R.C.O.P.No.91
of 2012, by the Additional Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif), Madurai
Town.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2288 and 2289 of 2022 and 729 of 2023
3.The petitioner herein is the respondent in R.C.O.P.No. 91 of 2012 filed
under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
1960 [hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''], for demolition and reconstruction of the
property. In R.C.O.P.No.91 of 2012, it was averred by the petitioner that the property
originally belonged to one Gayathiriammal, who had allowed the petitioner under
two separate agreements, dated 16.01.1999 and 21.01.1999, to continue to occupy
the demised premises and in lieu of the rent to be paid, the interest payable by the
owner was adjusted towards rent payable for a period of three years. As far as the 3 rd
item of the property, i.e., the shop is concerned, a separate agreement was entered on
20.04.1997, pursuant to which, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- as
advance and a further sum of Rs.20,000/- and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.400/- per
month towards rent for the 3rd item of the property.
4.The petitioner filed a counter affidavit on 26.04.2015 and admitted his status
as tenant. However, it is submitted that the respondent/landlord had failed to comply
with the requirements of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. After the arguments were over,
the petitioner filed I.A.No.40 of 2020 to file additional counter affidavit, wherein it
has been stated that he was the Mortgagee as far as the first two shops are concerned
and that his status was that of tenant only in respect of 3rd shop, in respect of which,
an agreement was signed on 20.04.1997. The said I.A. was dismissed by the
Additional Rent Controller, Madurai Town, vide order dated 22.12.2020. A further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2288 and 2289 of 2022 and 729 of 2023
appeal in R.C.A.No.13 of 2021 met with the same fate. Since no stay was obtained
by the petitioner in R.C.A.No.13 of 2021, the Rent Controller proceeded to pass a
final order in R.C.O.P.No.91 of 2012, vide order dated 18.03.2021, whereby allowed
the prayer of the respondent and thereby, ordered eviction of the petitioner. The
petitioner thus filed R.C.A.No.44 of 2021 against the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.91
of 2012, which was dismissed along with R.C.A.No.13 of 2021 by a common order,
dated 21.07.2022, as mentioned above.
5.Pursuant to the order dated 18.03.2021, passed in R.C.O.P.No.91 of 2012,
the respondent filed E.P.No.101 of 2021 before the Additional District Munsif Court,
Madurai Town. Delivery was ordered on 10.01.2023, which has been challenged in
the connected C.R.P.(MD)No.729 of 2023.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Additional Rent
Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority have committed a grave error in
not accepting the application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.40 of 2020, for
receiving additional counter affidavit in R.C.O.P.No.91 of 2012. A reference is made
to the averments in R.C.O.P.No.91 of 2012, which reads as under:-
''4.kJiu lTd;> ghg;ghd; fpzw;Wj; njU> NlhH 20A ek;ghpy;
fl;Lg;gl;l nkhj;j nrhj;Jk; Muk;gj;jpy; S.N.fhaj;jphp mk;khs;
vd;gtUf;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ. kD nrhj;jhdJ 3 NghH\d;fis
nfhz;lJ. Nkw;gb %d;W NghH\d;fSk; Nkw;gb NlhH 20A ek;ghpy;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2288 and 2289 of 2022 and 729 of 2023
fl;Lg;gl;l nkhj;j nrhj;jpy; xU gFjpahFk;. Nkw;gb fhaj;jphp
mk;khSk;> vjpHkDjhuUk; jhth 1tJ mapl;l nrhj;jpid (11 x 7-1/4
= 79-3/4 rJub) nghWj;J 16.01.1999Mk; Njjpapy; %d;W tUl tha;jh
fhyj;jpw;F xg;ge;jg; gj;jpuk; xd;iw Vw;gLj;jpf; nfhz;lhHfs;. me;j
xg;ge;jg; gj;jpugb S.N.fhaj;jphp mk;khs; 16.01.1999Mk; Njjpapy;
vjpHkDjhuhplkpUe;J &.50,000/-ia fldhfg; ngw;Wf;nfhz;lhH. Nkw;gb
fld;njhiff;F nrYj;j Ntz;ba tl;b yhgj;jpw;F gjpyhf
vjpHkDjhuH %d;W tUl tha;jh fhyj;jpw;F jhth 1tJ mapl;l
NghH\id mDgtpj;J tu Ngrp xg;Gf; nfhz;lhH. mt;tpjk;
mDgtpj;J tUtjw;fhf vjpHkDjhuH thlif njhif vJTk; nrYj;j
Ntz;bajpy;iy vd;Wk; mNj Nghy; Nkw;gb fld; njhiff;F
S.N.fhaj;jphp mk;khs; tl;b vJTk; nrYj;j Njitapy;iy vd;Wk;>
thliff;Fk;> tl;bf;Fk; (mz;ly;) rhp nra;J nfhs;tjw;fhf
S.N.fhaj;jphp mk;khSk;> vjpHkDjhuUk; Ngrp xg;Gf; nfhz;L Nkw;gb
xg;ge;jg; gj;jpuj;ij Vw;gLj;jpf; nfhz;lhHfs;. 1tJ mapl;l NghH\id
nghWj;J 16.01.1999Mk; Njjpa tl;bf;fhf filf; fl;blk; mDNghf
xg;ge;jg; gj;jpuk; mry; kDjhuH jug;G Mtzk; 1 MFk;. me;j
xg;ge;jg; gj;jpuj;jpy; fz;Ls;s rq;fjpfis ,e;j epH kDtpd; XH
mq;fkhf ghtpj;Jf; nfhs;s Ntz;baJ.
5.NkNy nrhd;dJ Nghy; 21.01.1999 Mk; Njjpapy; S.N.fhaj;jphp
mk;khs; vjpHkDjhuhplkpUe;J &.50>000/-j;ij kw;nwhU fld;
njhifahf ngw;Wf; nfhz;L Nkw;gb flDf;F nrYj;j Ntz;ba
tl;bf;F gjpyhf jhth 2tJ mapl;l NghH\id (10-1/4 x 5-1/4 =
53.3/4 rJub tp];jPuzk;) 3 tUl tha;jh fhyj;jpw;F vjpHkDjhuH
mDgtpj;J tUtjw;fhfTk;> Nkw;gb fld; njhiff;F nrYj;j
Ntz;ba tl;bAk;> Nkw;gb 2tJ mapl;l NghH\Df;F nrYj;jg;gl
Ntz;ba thlifAk; (mz;ly;) rhp nra;J nfhs;tjhf ,UtUk; Ngrp
xg;Gf; nfhz;L jhth 2tJ mapl;l NghH\id nghWj;J S.N.fhaj;jphp
mk;khSk;> vjpHkDjhuUk; NrHe;J 21.01.1999 Mk; Njjpa tl;bf;fhf
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2288 and 2289 of 2022 and 729 of 2023
kidtPL tifawh (fil) FbapUg;G mDNghf xg;ge;jk; Vw;gLj;jpf;
nfhz;lhHfs;. me;j 21.01.1999Mk;; Njjpa mDNghf xg;ge;j
gj;jpuj;jpd; mry; kDjhuH jug;G Mtzk; 2 MFk;. me;j mDNghf
xg;ge;jj;jpy; fz;Ls;s rq;fjpfis ,e;j epH kDtpd; XH mq;fkhf
ghtpj;Jf; nfhs;s Ntz;baJ. Nkw;gb ,uz;L xg;ge;j
gj;jpu \uj;Jf;fspd;gb tha;jh fhyk; 18.01.2002 & 21.01.2002 Mk;
NjjpAld; fhyhtjpahfptpl;lJ vd;gJ Fwpg;gplj;jf;fJ.
6.Nkw;gb tpguk; xUGwk; ,Uf;f 20.04.1997 Mk; Njjpad;W
vjpHkDjhuH 3tJ mapl;l NghH\id khj thlif &.400/- vd;Wk;
ml;thd;]; &.15>000/-k; vd;Wk;> S.N.fhaj;jphp mk;khsplk; Ngrp xg;Gf;
nfhz;L mJ Kjy; 3tJ mapl;l NghH\id (8 x 8 = 64 rJub)
vjpHkDjhuH thlifjhuH vd;w Kiwapy; mDgtpj;J
te;jhH. ,e;epiyapy; Nkw;gb S.N.fhaj;jphp mk;khs; mtuJ filrp
fhyj;jpy; mtru nryTf;fhf vjpHkDjhuhplk; &.20>000/-I jdpahf
fld; thq;fpdhH. Nkw;gb fld; njhif &.20>000/-k;> ml;thd;]; &.
15>000/-k;> Mf nkhj;jk; &.35>000/-f;F tl;bAk;> Nkw;gb 3tJ mapl;l
NghH\Df;F nrYj;jg;gl Ntz;ba thlifiaAk; mz;ly; / rhpnra;J
nfhs;tjhf (3tUl tha;jh fhyj;jpw;F) tha;nkhopahf ,UtUk; Ngrp
xg;Gf; nfhz;ldH. ,e;epiyapy; S.N.fhaj;jphp mk;khs; 02.11.1999Mk;
Njjpad;W fhykhfptpl;lhH. Nkw;gb jhth 1> 2> 3 mapl;l
NghH\d;fis nghWj;J vjpHkDjhuH xU Statutory Tenant MthH.''
7.It is submitted that even as per the averments made in the above said
Paragraphs, there is a clear indication that the petitioner was a Mortgagee and that
the owner namely, S.N.Gayathiriammal had mortgaged the property and that there
was a usufructuary mortgage within the meaning of Section 58(d) of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2288 and 2289 of 2022 and 729 of 2023
8.It is submitted that though the two agreements, dated 16.01.1999 and
21.01,1999, pursuant to which, the petitioner was allowed to occupy the first two
shops without payment of rent, was not registered, nevertheless could be tendered as
an evidence in terms of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.
9.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order
passed by the Additional Rent Controller as also the Rent Control Appellate
Authority have concluded that the petitioner was a tenant. The averments in the
R.C.O.P.No.91 of 2012 does not indicate that the petitioner was a Mortgagee. In any
event, it is submitted that no mortgage can be countenanced, as there is no
registration under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner has
merely occupied the premises as a tenant and that the interest payable on the amount
lent to the owner S.N.Gayathiriammal was adjusted towards the rent payable by the
petitioner and therefore, it cannot be countenanced that the petitioner was the
Mortgagee.
10.The learned counsel for the the respondent further submitted that the
respondent purchased the property from the daughters of S.N.Gayathiriammal, who
had executed a Will. It is further submitted that the said S.N.Gayathiriammal had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2288 and 2289 of 2022 and 729 of 2023
three sons and two daughters and three sons along with one of the daughters had also
filed O.S.No.893 of of 1999 before the Principal Sub Court, Madurai, for partition,
and the said suit was eventually dismissed on 11.08.2005, by upholding that the said
S.N.Gayathiriammal had executed a Will in favour of her two daughters. It is
submitted that in the said proceedings, the petitioner was arrayed as second
defendant, in which he remained ex parte.
11.It is further submitted that against the said judgment and decree, A.S.No.45
of 2005 was also filed before the Principal District Court, Madurai and the same was
also dismissed on 07.02.2006 and thus, the respondent perfected title pursuant to a
sale deed that was executed by the two daughters of Late.S.N.Gayathiriammal, with
whom, the petitioner had arrangement in terms of the registered sale deed, dated
29.12.2009.
12.The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the petitioner
has been in possession and enjoyment of the property since 1999 and even after the
rent control proceedings came to be initiated and allowed. It is submitted that the
daughters of Late.S.N.Gayathiriammal would have been liable to repay the loan
taken by their mother from the petitioner. Since the respondent has purchased the
property, namely, the three shops by a sale deed, dated 29.12.2009, he is ready and
willing to repay the amount that was given as a loan to the erstwhile owner namely,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2288 and 2289 of 2022 and 729 of 2023
S.N.Gayathiriammal by the petitioner.
13.To show his bona fide, today, the learned counsel for the respondent has
produced the following Demand Drafts, dated 18.03.2023, drawn on City Union
Bank Ltd., Anna Nagar Branch, Madurai, in favour of the respondent, before this
Court and submitted these amounts can be appropriated by the petitioner.
Sl. Demand Draft No. Amount
No.
1. 129219 50,000/-
2. 129220 35,000/-
3. 129221 50,000/-
Total 1,35,000/-
14.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the impugned
orders passed by the Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate
Authority.
15.In my view, there is no case made out for interfering with the impugned
orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority namely, the learned Principal
Subordinate Judge, Madurai, upholding the orders of the Additional Rent Controller
in I.A.No.40 of 2020 in R.C.O.P.No.91 of 2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2288 and 2289 of 2022 and 729 of 2023
16.The petitioner cannot take a diametrically opposite stand particularly, when
the case itself was mature for arguments, by filing an application, introducing
additional objection, which was clearly intended only to delay the disposal of
R.C.O.P.No.91 of 2012. The clear intention of the petitioner was to prolong the
longevity of the litigation before the Additional Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.91 of
2012, which has been rightly interfered with by the learned Additional Rent
Controller and confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
17.At this juncture, it is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
he has no instruction from the petitioner to receive the aforesaid Demand Drafts.
18.Considering the above, the respondent is directed to deposit the amount
before the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai. It is open for the petitioner to
withdraw the same by filing an appropriate application.
19.These Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed with the above observation.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.
NCC : Yes/No 19.04.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
smn2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2288 and 2289 of 2022 and 729 of 2023
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Madurai.
2.The Additional District Munsif,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2288 and 2289 of 2022 and 729 of 2023
C.SARAVANAN, J.
smn2
Common Order made in
C.R.P.(MD)Nos.2288 and 2289 of 2022 and 729 of 2023
19.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
