Madras High Court
P.Sivagami vs D.Kasthuri .... 1St on 22 August, 2023
CRP Nos.2932 and 2936 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.Nos.2932 and 2936 of 2019
and CMP Nos.18982 and 18988 of 2019
P.Sivagami ... Petitioner in both the civil revision petitions
Vs
D.Kasthuri .... 1st Respondent in both the revisions
Vasanthi .... 2nd respondent in CRP No.2932/2019
Muthu .... 2nd respondent in CRP No.2936/2019
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India against the order and decretal order dated 07.06.2019, dismissing MP
No.324 of 2018 in RCOP No.48 of 2015 (CRP No.2932 of 2019) and
M.P.No.322 of 2018 in RCOP No.47 of 2015 (CRP No.2936 of 2019) passed by
the Principal District Munsif at Alandur.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Kalidos
For Respondents : Mr.S.Thirumavalavan
For R.1 in both the revisions
M/s Sadhana Chundaravizhi
For Tri Law Office
For R.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP Nos.2932 and 2936 of 2019
COMMON ORDER
These revisions arise against the order passed in MP No.324 of 2018 in
RCOP No.48 of 2015 (CRP No.2932 of 2019) and M.P.No.322 of 2018 in
RCOP No.47 of 2015 (CRP No.2936 of 2019) by the Rent Controller/Principal
District Munsif, Alandur. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to as their rank in Rent Control Original Petition.
2. RCOP No.48 of 2015 was filed by one Kasthuri, claiming to be the
land lady of one Vasanthi. Similarly, RCOP No.47 of 2015 was filed by one
Kasthuri, claiming to be the land lady of one Muthu. Both the petitions were
filed under Section 10(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act, 1960.
3. In the said proceedings, the respective tenants have filed counters
stating that they are not the tenants of Kasthuri, but, they are the tenants of the
Civil Revision Petitioner. The specific plea to that effect was taken in
Paragraph No.2 of the counter filed to both the RCOPs.
4. The Civil Revision Petitioner, claiming to be the owner, had filed
M.P.Nos.324 and 322 of 2018. The prayers in these petitions were to implead
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP Nos.2932 and 2936 of 2019
the Civil Revision Petitioner as a party respondent in RCOP Nos.47 and 48 of
2015. After receiving counter from D.Kasthuri/1st respondent in M.P.Nos.324
and 322 of 2018, the Rent Controller was pleased to dismiss the impleading
petitions by order dated 07.06.2019. The learned Rent Controller held that the
Civil Revision Petitioner/petitioner in M.P.Nos.324 and 322 of 2018 has not
proved her case and therefore, she is not entitled to be impleaded as a party to
the proceedings.
5. Heard Mr.J.Kalidos, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and
Mr.S.Thirumavalavan, learned counsel for the first respondent in both the
revisions.
6. At the outset, I have to vacate the finding of the Rent Controller that as
the proposed party had not filed any title documents, she is not the owner of the
property. It is not the duty of the Rent Controller to probe into the question of
title. The Rent Control Court is a Court constituted under the Rent Control Act
for specified purposes which has been stated in the said Act. For the sake of
convenience, the Civil Court has been notified as Rent Controllers. That does
not extend the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to probe into the question of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP Nos.2932 and 2936 of 2019
title. The Rent Controller has no power to give a finding on the question of
title. Therefore, I am constrained to interfere with that aspect and vacate the
finding.
7. Insofar as the right of the petitioner to be impleaded as a party to the
proceedings, I have my own doubt and pointed out to the learned counsel for
the petitioner that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 has held to be not
maintainable before the Rent Controller in the case of Aruppukottai Dravida
Munetra Kazhagam vs M.Periaswami and another 1974 TNLJ 247.
8. Mr.J.Kalidos, came with an unreported judgment of this Court in the
case of M.Thangamani vs P.Dharmaraj and another, CRP (PD) No.711 of
2007 and stated that the judgment in the case of Aruppukottai Dravida
Munetra Kazhagam vs M.Periaswami and another 1974 TNLJ 247 is no
longer good law.
9. I have gone through the order of the learned Single Judge of this
Court. It is true that the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the
judgment in the case of Aruppukottai Dravida Munetra Kazhagam vs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP Nos.2932 and 2936 of 2019
M.Periaswami and another 1974 TNLJ 247 is no longer good in law and has
to be eschewed. However, it was not with respect to the factual scenario which
has been arisen before me. That was the case where the property had been sold
by the original landlord in favour of the proposed party and the proposed party
wanted to come on record. To this, an argument was made that Order 1 Rule
10(2) was not maintainable. It was in those circumstances, the learned Judge
held that the judgment in the case of Aruppukottai Dravida Munetra
Kazhagam vs M.Periaswami and another 1974 TNLJ 247 cannot be applied.
I am afraid that one learned Single Judge of this Court cannot overrule a
judgment of another learned Single Judge. This has been the position from the
time the Courts have been created and I presume the same position of law
prevails as on today.
10. The position of law is this - When a landlord alienates the property
in favour of a third party and the third party wants to continue the proceedings,
he can do so by filing an application before the Court. It is because what he in
effect doing is continuing with the proceeding on the old cause of action on the
basis of which the Rent Control proceeding had been initiated. Apart from that,
by virtue of Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act, there is a statutory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP Nos.2932 and 2936 of 2019
attornment of tenancy in favour of the purchaser. However, this is
fundamentally different from a case where there are two persons who are
fighting with each other claiming that both of them are the landlords. In such
circumstances, the Rent Controller would have to decide as to who is the
landlord. My reading of the Rent Control Act does not lead me to the
conclusion that the Rent Controller can decide inter se between two persons as
to who is the landlord.
11. Mr.J.Kalidos would submit that both the tenants have specifically
pleaded that they are the tenants of his client and not the tenants of the landlady
Kasthuri.
12. It is the issue which would be gone into by the Rent Controller. The
Rent Controller would have to necessarily decide as to whether Vasanthi and
Muthu, who have been shown as tenants, are in fact the tenants of Kasthuri. If
the Rent Controller comes to a conclusion that they are not the tenants of
Kasthuri, the buck stops there. The Rent Control Original Petition will have to
be dismissed. The Rent Controller is certainly entitled to give a finding as
regards the jural relationship between inter se respondents before me. For the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP Nos.2932 and 2936 of 2019
said purpose, the Civil Revision Petitioner is neither necessary nor a proper
party. Apart from that, the Civil Revision Petitioner is only fishing in troubled
waters, in the sense of the dispute between the respondents 1 and 2 who are
before me. If the Civil Revision Petitioner wants to stake a claim to the
property, her remedy is only by way of a suit for title before a regularly
constituted Civil Court and not attempt to get a decree by guile before a Rent
Controller.
13. I am of the clear view that in a dispute between the inter se
respondents 1 and 2, the civil revision petitioner is not necessary and therefore,
I confirm the order passed by the Rent Controller, not for the reasons given by
the Rent Controller, but for the reasons aforesaid.
14. Mr.J.Kalidos would state that civil suit had already been initiated by
his client claiming title to the property. The findings given in this revision will
not in any way affect the matters pending before the Civil Court. I have only
decided whether the Rent controller has a jurisdiction to decide the inter se
question of title between two persons, claiming to be the landlords and my
answer is that the Rent Controller does not possess jurisdiction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP Nos.2932 and 2936 of 2019
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
Sr
15. In fine, the order passed by Principal District Munsif at Alandur in
No.324 of 2018 in RCOP No.48 of 2015 (CRP No.2932 of 2019) and
M.P.No.322 of 2018 in RCOP No.47 of 2015 (CRP No.2936 of 2019) are
confirmed and both the Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed.
16. Since the RCOP is pending for more than five years, the learned Rent
Controller is requested to bestow some attention to the matter and dispose of
the same as expeditiously as possible.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22.08.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
sr
To
The Principal District Munsif, Alandur
CRP Nos.2932 and 2936 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
