Soundarambal vs M.Dakshinamoorthy (Died)
2023 Latest Caselaw 11321 Mad

                                                            C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 28.08.2023

                                                     CORAM:

                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

                                        C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009
                                              and M.P.Nos.1,1,1 of 2009
                     1.Soundarambal
                     2.Rajasekar (died)
                     3.Rajavelu Mudaliar (died)

                     4.R.Nagavalli
                     5.R.Selvakumar
                     6.Selvakumari                                           .. Petitioners in
                                                                         all the three CRPs

                                                          Vs.
                     1.M.Dakshinamoorthy (died)
                     (Represented by Power of Attorney
                     M.D.Thiyagarajan)

                     2.Vedammal
                     3.Panjabikesan
                     4.Palanivel
                     5.Jothi

                     6.D.Vijayalakshmi
                     7.D.Thiyagarajan
                     8.D.Natarajan                                       .. Respondents in

all the three CRPs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009

(Petitioners 4 to 6 brought on record as the legal heirs of the deceased 2nd petitioner viz., Rajasekar and the respondents 6 to 8 brought on record as the legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent viz., M.Dakshinamoorthy vide Court order dated 22.02.2021 made in C.M.P.Nos.8309 to 8314 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.21250 to 21255 and 20774 to 20779 of 2017 in C.R.P.Nos. 1378 to 1380 of 2009)

(Respondents 2 to 5 brought on record as the legal heirs of the deceased 3rd petitioner viz., Rajavelu Mudaliar vide Court order dated 02.11.2017 made in M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 in C.R.P.Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009)

COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section

25 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969

against the order of eviction passed in R.C.A.Nos.1 to 3 of 2004 dated

23.02.2007 on the file of the Additional District Court, Pondicherry at

Karaikal in reversing the order dismissing R.C.O.P.Nos.37, 39 & 38 of

2000 dated 30.09.2003 on the file of the Rent Controller at Karaikal.

In all the three CRPs.

                                  For Petitioner     : Mr.R.Natarajan
                                  For RR2 to 4       : No appearance
                                  For R7 & R8        : Mr.S.Saravana Kumar





https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                     C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009

                                                      COMMON ORDER

These three revisions are preferred under Section 25 of the

Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969. The 1st

respondent M.Dakshinamoorthy, before me initiated H.R.C.O.P.Nos.37 to

39 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Controller, Karaikal. There were three

applications, which had been presented for the purpose of eviction of the

tenants for own occupation, wilful default and denial of title respectively.

2. The parties are referred to as per their respective ranks in the

H.R.C.O.Ps.

3. It is the case of the petitioner in HRCOPs. that he is the landlord

of the property. The property was let out to one Ponnusamy Mudaliar, the

father-in-law of the 1st respondent, father of the 3rd respondent and grand

father of the 2nd respondent. The said Ponnusamy Mudaliar had taken the

property on lease from one Mahadeva Mudaliar, the father of the

petitioner. To that effect, the lease deed had been executed on

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009

30.06.1942. The lease deed had also been registered with the French

Government, because during the relevant time, Pondicherry was under

the French control.

4. After the death of Ponnusamy Mudaliar, i.e., the predecessor in

possession of the property of the respondents, his sons Somasundara

Mudaliar and Rajavelu Mudaliar were in occupation of the property

paying the rents to Mahadeva Mudaliar, the father of the petitioner. The

sons of Rajavelu Mudaliar left the property in custody of the respondents

and the respondents were paying the rents to the original landlord.

5. It is the further case of the landlords that there was a family

arrangement in Mahadeva Mudaliar's family and the petition mentioned

premises fell to the share of Dakshinamoorthy Mudaliar, who is the

petitioner in the R.C.O.P. As the respondents did not pay the rent, a

notice was issued by the landlord on 06.01.1999. It was replied to by the

respondents claiming title to the property. Since the respondents claimed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009

title denying the right of the petitioner, R.C.O.P.No.39 of 2000 was filed

by the landlord for denial of title. As the respondents did not pay the rent

despite the demand, R.C.O.P.No.38 of 2000 was presented. In addition to

these two RCOPs, R.C.O.P.No.37 of 2000 was filed for own occupation.

6. The respondents filed counters stating that they are the owners

of the property and they have been in long possession and enjoyment of

the property. They would claim that they have bonafidely denied the title,

but also they would say the requirement of the landlord is also not so.

7. It is pertinent to point out in the pleadings that had been filed by

the respondents/tenants, they would claim that the patta to the property

stands in the names of Somasundara Mudaliar and Rajavelu Mudaliar,

sons of Ponnusamy Mudaliar. The 1st respondent/tenant viz.,

Soundarambal would claim that she got married only on 14.09.1942 and

therefore, she could not have spoken about the registered lease deed

dated 30.06.1942. The basis for denial of title was the patta, electricity

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009

bills and the house tax assessment issued by the Commune Panchayat.

8. The learned Rent Controller found that there has been a

bonafide denial of title and therefore, dismissed the RCOP No.39 of

2000. Since he came to a conclusion that there was no relationship

between the landlord and the tenant, the other RCOPs automatically

stood dismissed.

9. Against the said order and decretal order dated 30.09.2003,

R.C.A.Nos.1, 2 & 3 of 2004 were preferred before the Additional District

Judge-cum-the Rent Control Appellate Authority at Karaikal. The said

authority placed reliance upon Exs.A3 and A4 in order to come to a

conclusion that the petitioner is the landlord and denial of title by the

respondents is not bonafide and therefore, allowed the appeals and

decreed the RCOPs.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009

10. Against this reversal finding, the present revisions have been

preferred by the tenants.

11. Heard Mr.R.Natarajan and Mr.S.Saravana Kumar, the learned

counsel for the respective parties. I have carefully gone through the

records.

12. Mr.R.Natarajan, would plead that there is a differentiation

between the notice that had been issued claiming wilful default and the

pleading in the R.C.O.P. He would state that nowhere in the notice had

the averments that had been made in the petitions have been setforth. He

would then point out to the electricity bills, the patta that had been

granted to the tenants as well as the house tax receipts for the purpose of

ascertaining the right of the tenants to the property. The Rent Controller

cannot go into the question of title and therefore, the order of the learned

trial Judge is erroneous and requires interference.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009

13. Per contra, Mr.S.Saravana Kumar, would invite my attention to

Exs.A4 and A5 in order to state that a person, who enters into possession

of the property as a tenant is not entitled to deny the title, especially

when the document is registered.

14. A perusal of Ex.A4, the sale deed would show that under the

notaire sale deed, the predecessor in title of the landlords had acquired

the property. Further, a perusal of Ex.A3 dated 30.04.1942 would also

show that Ponnusamy Mudaliar, the father-in-law of the 1st respondent

had come about the property only pursuant to the said agreement. I have

to point out when Pondicherry was being ruled by the French, the

practice of transfer of title was by way of a notaire sale deed and he had

acquired the property on 27.04.1942.

15. A perusal of Ex.A3 would show that a registered lease

document had been entered into between the father of the petitioner and

the father-in-law of the 1st respondent namely, between Mahadeva

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009

Mudaliar and Ponnusamy Mudaliar. Having entered the property under a

registered lease agreement, the tenants could not have denied the title to

the landlord. The lower Appellate Court had looked into this very aspect

and had come to a conclusion that the plea of the tenants that Arumuga

Mudaliar, the vendor to Ponnusamy Mudaliar on 27.04.1942 is a

different person from Arumuga mudaliar through whom, the tenants

claim. This is seen from the perusal of paragraph 16 of the said judgment.

16. Apart from that, I concur with the view of the Rent Control

Appellate Authority that the Rent Controller is concerned only with the

relationship of the landlord and the tenants, which in this case has been

proved under Ex.A3 and he is not concerned with the dispute relating to

the title. The predecessor of the tenants having obtained possession

through Ex.A3 are estopped by virtue of Section 116 of the Indian

Evidence Act from denying the title of the landlords.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009

17. The other aspect also has to be seen in this light namely, the

submissions of Mr.R.Natarajan that the pleadings do not match with the

Advocate notice. I should remind myself that I am not dealing with the

regularly instituted civil suit for title for me to be concerned about the

pleadings as required under Order VI of C.P.C. Rent Control proceedings

are summary proceeding and the Court should not pay much attention to

the pleadings between the parties, if it is convinced to the relationship

between the landlord and tenant. This is moreso when the parties have

joined in the issues and have understood each other's case.

18. As I have already come to a conclusion by virtue of Exs.A3

and A4, which proves that the respondents in these revisions are the

landlords of the premises and the denial of their title by the petitioners in

these revisions is not only wilful, but with a malafide intention to grab

the property, I am not willing to apply the same principles that is applied

for pleadings for declaration of title to the Rent Control proceedings.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009

19. The revenue documents that have been relied upon namely, the

house tax receipts, the electricity bills and the patta have not been shown

to the satisfaction of the Court that they were issued during the presence

of the landlords. Furthermore, the revenue documents cannot confer title

is too well settled for me to reiterate. I have to also take note of the

defence of the tenants. The tenants took a defence that the vendor of

Ponnusamy Mudaliar namely, Arumuga mudaliar is also their predecessor

in title, which means the entire idea was to confuse the identity of

Arumuga mudalair. The vendor Arumuga mudalair who was the

Mirasudhar, alienated the property in favour of Mahadeva Mudaliar, the

other Mirasudar (the predecessor in title of Ponnusamy Mudaliar) reflects

the ulterior motive of the tenants to grab the property.

20. I do not find any reasons to go against the registered

documents under Exs.A3 and A4. Furthermore, I have come to a

conclusion that the denial of title is not bonafide and hence, the landlords

are entitled to succeed. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition preferred

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009

against HRCOP No.38 of 2000 stands dismissed.

21. In so far as the revision preferred against the wilful default

aspect, going through the counter, one is clear that from the time the

tenants projected the title to themselves, they did not pay the rents on the

basis of their malafide assertion of title in themselves. Therefore, the

aspect on wilful default is also proved and denial of payment of the rental

due to the landlords is also wilful. Consequently, the revision preferred

against the HRCOP No.38 of 2000 also stands dismissed.

22. In so far as the petition filed under Section 10(2)(i) of the

Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, the landlord

has stated that he requires an accommodation for his son, who is the

power of attorney. He has also entered the witness box and deposed that

they do not have any other property in the area other than the property,

which is a subject matter of the revision. I am satisfied that the

requirement of the landlord is bonafide and therefore, the appeal filed

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009

against HRCOP No.37 of 2000 also stands dismissed.

23. At this stage, Mr.R.Natarajan seeks time to vacate and

handover the possession.

24. If an affidavit of undertaking is filed stating that the

tenants/petitioners herein will vacate and handover the peaceful

possession of the property to the landlords/respondents herein without

putting any third party in possession of the same and after clearing the

arrears of rent and continuing to pay the rent as long as they are in

possession, time for vacating and handover the possession to the

landlords is granted one year from today. Time for filing an affidavit of

undertaking is granted till 08.09.2023. It is made clear that if the affidavit

of undertaking is not filed by 08.09.2023, the time granted will not enure

in favour of the tenants and the landlord is free to execute eviction.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009

25. In fine, C.R.P.Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009 stand dismissed. No

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

26. Call the matter for compliance on 11.09.2023.

28.08.2023 Index:Yes/No Speaking Order :Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No kj

To

1. The Rent Controller at Karaikal.

2. The Additional District Court Pondicherry at Karaikal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.

Kj

C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1378 to 1380 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1,1,1 of 2009

28.08.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis