Madras High Court
M.Anthony vs K.G.Gopalakrishnan on 12 January, 2023
CRP.No.5027 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.No.5027 of 2011
and MP.No.1 of 2011
1.M.Anthony
2.A.Kumar
3.A.Murugesan ... petitioners
Vs.
1.K.G.Gopalakrishnan
2.Sakku Bhai
3.Saroja
4.Lakshmi Bhai
5.Ram Bhai
6.Rathika
7.Jayaprakash
8.Sampathkumar
9.Ravikumar @ Ramesh Kumar
10.Dhanalakshmi
11.Latha
12.R.Suresh Babu
13.R.Vijayalakshmi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamilnadu Buildings
(Lease & Rent Control) Act to set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2011
made in RCA.No.17 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Salem
confirming the order and decretal order dated 03.02.2006 made in RCOP.No.32 of
2000 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Kannan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
CRP.No.5027 of 2011
For Respondents
For R1,4 to 13 : Mr.B.Balavijayan
for M/s.C.S.Associates
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the judgment
and decree dated 22.08.2011 made in RCA.No.17 of 2006 on the file of the
Principal Subordinate Court, Salem confirming the order and decretal order dated
03.02.2006 made in RCOP.No.32 of 2000 on the file of the II Additional District
Munsif Court, Salem, thereby ordered for eviction on the ground of wilful default.
2. The petitioners are the tenants under the respondents in respect of the
petition premises. The case of the respondents is that they own the petition
premises and it was originally leased out in favour of one, Muthu, who is the
father of the first petitioner herein twenty years before. Originally, rent was fixed
at Rs.15/- per month and subsequently, it was enhanced into Rs.75/- p.m.
However, after the demise of the said Muthu, no rent was paid regularly by the
petitioners. From the month of April 1998, they have not paid any rent and hence,
petition was filed for eviction on the ground of wilful default.
3. Resisting the same, the petitioners filed counter stating that they
denied the title of the respondents. Further stated that there is no landlord tenant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.5027 of 2011
relationship since the petition premises is a Government poramboke and belongs
to Government. They also filed suit in OS.No.122 of 2000 for permanent
injunction and the same was decreed in their favour in respect of the very same
property.
4. On the side of the respondents, they had examined PW1 and marked
Ex.A1 to Ex.A10. On the side of the petitioners herein, they examined RW1 and
marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B10. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the
learned Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition and ordered for eviction.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred Rent Control Appeal and the Rent
Control Appellate Authority also confirmed the order passed by the learned Rent
Controller and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil
revision petition has been filed.
5. The petitioners raised ground that the Rent Control Original Petition
itself is not maintainable since there is no landlord tenant relatinship between the
parties. The petitioners have produced house tax receipt and electricity charge
payment receipt pertaining to the petition premises, which were marked as Ex.B4
to Ex.B8. It shows that they are the owners of the property and the RCOP itself is
not maintainable. The petitioners also obtained decree of permanent injunction in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.5027 of 2011
OS.No.122 of 2000 in respect of the petition premises and as such, they proved
their title over the property and they need not to pay any rent for the petition
premises to the respondents herein.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 1, 4 to 13 would
submit that the petitioners themselves admitted that they are tenants under the
respondents in the writ petition in WP.No.29574 of 2007 before this Court while
challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. Though
the petitioner obtained decree in OS.No.122 of 2000, it was decreed that without
due process of law, their possession and enjoyment of the suit property cannot be
disturbed. Therefore, the respondents filed eviction petition on the ground of
wilful default in RCOP.No.32 of 2000. Both the courts below rightly ordered for
eviction and they do not warrant interference by this Court.
7. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel
for respondents 1, 4 to 13.
8. The petitioners denied the title over the petition premises. In order to
prove the same, they produced decree passed in OS.No.122 of 2000 dated
20.09.2002 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Salem. They also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.5027 of 2011
marked Ex.B4 to Ex.B6 and Ex.B8 which had shown that they paid house tax and
electricity consumption charges. Admittedly, the suit filed by the petitioners was
for permanent injunction. It does not mean that they have title over the property.
That apart, admittedly the petitioners did not pay any rent to the respondents so far
after demise of the father of the first petitioner herein.
9. On perusal of the order passed by this Court in WP.No.29574 of 2007
dated 25.08.2008, one of the petitioners herein along with two others challenged
the order passed by the Tahsildar, Yercard, Salem District dated 17.08.2007,
thereby ordered to demolish the building for the reason that it is likely to cause
danger to the people who uses the main road which is situated adjoining the
building. In the said writ petition, the petitioners categorically stated that they are
the tenants under the first respondent herein and they also filed suit in OS.No.122
of 2000 for permanent injunction to restrain the first respondent herein from
dispossessing them without due process of law. The eviction proceedings was also
initiated and the same was also allowed. Aggrieved by the same, they filed appeal
and it is pending. Therefore, this Court set aside the proceedings initiated by the
Tahsildar, Yercaud, Salem District on the ground that he had no jurisdiction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.5027 of 2011
10. Therefore, the petitioners cannot raise the ground that there is no
landlord tenant relationship. They themselvels categorically admitted that the
petition premises is owned by the respondents and admitted their landlord tenant
relationship. In fact, this Court while allowing the writ petition by order dated
25.08.2008, further observed that the first respondet has adopted an ingenious way
to approach the Tahsildar, thereby offering to demolish the building in the event of
the petitioners herein being evicted from the properties by an order passed under
Section 133 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the respondents proved that they are the owners
of the petition premises and admittedly, the petitioners failed to pay any rent to the
respondents so far for the petition premises. Hence, both the courts below rightly
ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default and this Court finds no infirmity
or illegality in the orders passed by the courts below.
11. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
12.01.2023
Speaking/non-speaking
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.5027 of 2011
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No.5027 of 2011
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Court,
Salem
2.The II Additional District Munsif Court,
Salem.
CRP.No.5027 of 2011
12.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
