Madras High Court
Krishnan vs Bhuvaneswari on 7 June, 2023
CRP.No. 3060 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 07.06.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Civil Revision Petition No. 3060 of 2021
and
CMP No. 21624 of 2021
1. Krishnan
2. M. Krishnaveni ... Petitioners
Versus
Bhuvaneswari ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25(1), (2) of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960 read with under
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to set aside the fair
and decretal order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the learned Appellate
Authority cum VIII Small Causes Court Judge, Chennai in RCA No.269 of
2017 confirming the order passed by the Rent Controller cum Small
Causes Court Judge, Chennai, in RCOP. No. 1120 of 2015 dated
20.02.2017.
For petitioner : Mr. M. Jayakumar
For Respondent : Mr. N. Murali Mohan
1 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 3060 of 2021
ORDER
The respondent herein has filed R.C.O.P. No. 1120 of 2015 before
the learned Rent Controller under Sections 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (a) (i) of
the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960, for eviction
of the revision petitioners from the property in question on the grounds of
willful default and owner's own use and occupation. The learned Rent
Controller allowed the RCOP. No.1120 of 2015 on the ground of willful
default in payment of rent alone, but dismissed it insofar as the plea
relating to owners own use and occupation. Aggrieved by the order dated
20.02.2017 in RCOP. No. 1120 of 2015, the revision petitioners herein
have filed RCA. No. 269 of 2017 before the learned Rent Control
Appellate Authority. By the Judgment dated 21.10.2021, the learned Rent
Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the learned
Rent Controller and dismissed the Rent Control Appeal. As against the
same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the tenants.
2 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 3060 of 2021
2. The respondent has filed R.C.O.P. No. 1120 of 2015 by
contending that she is the owner of the property in question in which the
revision petitioners herein were inducted as tenants. The property in
question measuring about 150 sq.ft., situated at Door No.26, L.G.N. Road,
Border Thottam, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002 was acquired by her
father by way of an unregistered sale deed dated 10.09.1982 and it was
inherited by her from her father. Subsequently, on 10.02.1986, the
revision petitioners herein were inducted as tenants by the respondent. As
per the rental agreement dated 10.02.1986, the rent for the premises in
question was fixed at Rs.35/- per month and a sum of Rs.100/- was paid as
advance. While so, in the year 2012 it was decided by the respondent
along with her brothers to demolish the existing superstructure and put up
a new building thereon. Therefore, they have called upon the revision
petitioners to vacate and hand over the property within two months. Even
though the revision petitioners agreed to do so they did not vacate from
the premises. When the respondent along with her brothers reiterated their
demand for vacating the property, the revision petitioners threatened and
abused the respondent and her brother. Therefore, the respondent has
given a complaint on 16.03.2015 to the Inspector of Police, Anna Salai
3 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 3060 of 2021
Police Station, however, the Police Officials did not take any action.
While so, the second revision petitioner sent a notice dated 01.04.2015
making a rival claim over the property and asserted that the revision
petitioners herein are the owners of the property and the respondent has no
manner of right, title or interest over the same. On receipt of the notice
dated 01.04.2015, the respondent sent a reply on 20.05.2015 repudiating
the averments raised therein. Thereafter, the respondent has filed R.C.O.P.
No.1120 of 2015 for eviction.
3. The Original Petition was contested by the revision
petitioners by contending that they are in occupation and possession of the
property in question for more than 60 years. It is stated that the revision
petitioners were never in occupation of the property as a tenant under the
respondent. The building in question is old and is in a dilapidated
condition. The forefathers of the revision petitioners were in occupation
of the premises and subsequently, they continued to remain in possession
of the property. When the respondent attempted to evict the revision
petitioners forcefully, they have given a complaint to the Inspector of
Police, D2, Anna Salai, Police Station but the Police Officials directed
4 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 3060 of 2021
them to resolve the dispute before a competent Civil Court. Accordingly,
the revision petitioners prayed for dismissal of the RCOP. No. 1120 of
2015.
4. In RCOP. No. 1120 of 2015, the respondent herein examined
herself as PW1 and one Mr. Ganesan was examined as PW2 and Exs. P1
to P16 were marked. On behalf of the revision petitioners, the second
revision petitioner herein was examined as RW1 and Exs. R1 to R18 were
marked.
5. The learned Rent Controller on appreciation of the rival
submissions as also oral and documentary evidence has concluded that the
revision petitioners herein are the tenants under the respondent and the
non payment of rent since February 2012 is unjustified. Therefore, for
non payment of rent the RCOP. No. 1120 of 2015 was allowed directing
the revision petitioners herein to vacate and hand over the vacant
possession of the property to the respondent herein within two months.
5 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 3060 of 2021
6. As against the order dated 20.02.2017 in RCOP. No. 1120 of
2015, the revision petitioners herein have unsuccessfully filed RCA. No.
269 of 2017 before the Appellate Authority as the learned Rent Control
Appellate Authority by Judgment dated 21.10.2021 confirmed the order
passed by the Rent Controller and dismissed the RCA. No. 269 of 2017
filed by the revision petitioners herein. It is as against the order passed by
the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA. No. 269 of 2017,
the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
7. During the pendency of R.C.O.P. No. 1120 of 2015, the
second revision petitioner herein namely, Krishnaveni, has filed a suit in
O.S. No. 3649 of 2015 before the learned XII Assistant City Civil Court,
Chennai, for permanent injunction. According to the plaintiff in O.S. No.
3649 of 2015 she is in occupation of the property in question for a period
of 60 years. Further, she is in possession of the property in her own right.
Therefore, she has filed the suit to protect her possession from being
disturbed by the defendants thereon namely the respondent in this revision
petition and two others.
6 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 3060 of 2021
8. In the suit in O.S. No. 3649 of 2015, the respondent herein
was arrayed as third defendant. The respondent herein has filed her
written statement and contested the suit. In the suit also the respondent
raised a defence that the plaintiff/second revision petitioner herein was a
tenant under her and she cannot make any independent claim of title over
the property in question. The contention of the plaintiff that she is in
possession for more than 60 years is false. In the written statement
reference was also made to the filing of RCOP. No. 1120 of 2015 before
the learned Rent Controller.
9. In the suit in O.S. No. 3649 of 2015, the second revision
petitioner examined herself as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. The
respondent herein was examined as DW1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B19 were
marked.
10. The trial Court on consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence has concluded that the plaintiff/2nd revision petitioner herein has
produced sufficient documents to prove her possession, which was also
7 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 3060 of 2021
admitted by the defendants/respondent herein. The trial Court also stated
that there is a dispute between the parties as landlord and tenants.
However, such a dispute will not be a ground to evict the plaintiff from her
possession. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit and granted a
permanent injunction.
11. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants in O.S. No. 3649 of
2015 have filed A.S. No. 98 of 2018 before the Appellate Court. The first
Appellate Court, by the judgment dated 30.07.2019, set aside the judgment
and decree passed by the trial Court and allowed the appeal.
12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would
vehemently contend that the Courts below have erred in not considering
the fact that the revision petitioners are in possession and occupation of
the demised premises on their own right. The learned Rent Controller as
well as the Appellate Authority did not consider that the revision
petitioners were never in occupation of the premises as a tenant. There
was no relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant and
therefore, the question of non payment of rent will not arise. It is also
8 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 3060 of 2021
submitted that the Rent Control Appellate Authority failed to consider the
deposition of the parties in the suit in O.S. No. 3649 of 2015 which led to
miscarriage of justice. The courts below also did not consider the oral and
documentary evidence in the proper perspective. Therefore, the learned
counsel for the revision petitioners prayed for allowing the Civil Revision
Petition.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has invited
attention of this Court to the order passed by the learned Rent Controller,
the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority as well as the judgment and
decree in A.S.No. 98 of 2018 and submitted that even though the revision
petitioners claimed a right and title in respect of the premises in question,
the second revision petitioner herein has clearly admitted that she has not
produced any document to prove her so called long and continued
possession over the property. Both the learned Rent Controller as well as
the Appellate Authority have also concluded that the claim of the revision
petitioners that they have title to the property in question has not been
substantiated by any acceptable evidence. The ration card, Aadhar card
and other documents are filed to prove their identity in the property in
9 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 3060 of 2021
question but those documents will not confer them any right to claim title
over the property. The learned counsel would submit that the revision
petitioners have been inducted as a tenant in the property in question
during 1986 and they have been paying rent until February 2012.
However, from February 2012, even without paying the admitted rent,
they are squatting over the property by falsely claiming a right and title in
the said property. Therefore, the learned Rent Controller as well as the
learned Rent Control Appellate Authority have rightly directed the
eviction of the revision petitioners herein. Furthermore, the revision
petitioners, having suffered a decree in AS. No. 98 of 2018, did not prefer
any Second Appeal before this Court and therefore, the judgment and
decree passed in A.S. No. 98 of 2018 has reached a finality. In such
circumstances, the learned counsel for the respondent prayed for dismissal
of this Civil Revision Petition with exemplary costs.
14. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well
as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials placed
on record.
10 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 3060 of 2021
15. On appreciation of the above submissions, this Court had
perused the oral and documentary evidence made available. On going
through the averments in the petition in RCOP. No. 1120 of 2015, it could
be seen that the respondent herein claimed that she is the landlord and she
had let out the property in question to the revision petitioners herein for
rent during the year 1986. The copy of rental agreement dated 10.02.1986
was marked as Ex.P4 in RCOP. No. 1120 of 2015. That apart several
other documents were also filed to show that the property tax in respect of
the demised premises was paid in the name of the respondent. On the
other hand, the revision petitioners herein have filed 8 documents as
Ex.R1 to Ex.R8. None of those documents pertains to the claim for title
made by the revision petitioners. The documents filed are (i) Voter ID (ii)
Family Card (iii) Aadhar Card (iv) a copy of the legal notice dated
01.04.2015 and copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 3649 of 2015. In such
circumstances, it is futile on the part of the revision petitioners to contend
that they are in possession of the property in question on their own right
and such possession cannot be disturbed by the respondent or others.
11 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 3060 of 2021
16. Coming to the averments made in the plaint in O.S. No. 3649
of 2015 filed by the second revision petitioner herein, a perusal of the
averments in the plaint would only show that they are bald, vague and
bereft of any material particulars relating to the so called title to the
property. In the plaint in O.S. No. 3649 of 2015, the second respondent
has merely averred that she is in possession of the premises for over 60
years or she is in possession of the property in her own right. In this
context the statement of the second revision petitioner, as PW1, during her
cross examination in O.S. No. 3649 of 2015 assumes significance. This
was also elucidated in para No. 14 of the judgment dated 11.08.2017 in
O.S. No. 3649 of 2015 and it reads as follows:-
"14. The plaintiff has to prove on what basis she
has perfected her title in the suit property. To prove the
said fact there is no piece of evidence is produced
before this Court. The PW1 has been cross examined
by the defendants counsel. During her cross
examination she has deposed that "ehd; jhth brhj;jpy;
50 Mz;Lfshf trpj;J tUfpnwd; vd;gij fhz;gpf;f ve;j
MtzKk; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/
jhthr;brhj;J vd;DilaJ vd;gij epU:gpf;f thp urPnjh
my;yJ gl;lhnth ,e;j tHf;fpy; jhf;fy; br;aJs;nsdh
vd;why; ,y;iy"
17. The trial Court in the judgment in O.S. No. 3649 of 2015 has
12 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 3060 of 2021
verbatim extracted the deposition of the plaintiff as well as the defendants,
but come to a conclusion that the possession of the plaintiff/second
revision petitioner herein has to be protected and granted a permanent
injunction. However, the judgment and decree of the trial court was set
aside by the Appellate Court. The appellate Court in the judgment in A.S.
No. 98 of 2018 referred to the deposition of the parties as also the oral and
documentary evidence filed by them and concluded that the plaintiff did
not prove that she is in possession of the property in question in her own
right. This Court also perused the deposition made by the second revision
petitioner as PW1, the respondent herein as DW1, the Judgment of the
Appellate Court in A.S. No. 98 of 2018. On such perusal, it is glaringly
evident that the second revision petitioner has not produced any
documentary evidence to prove the claim for title over the property.
18. Yet another point to be noted in this case is that Ex.P1 and
Ex.P2 as well as Ex.P5 to Ex.P10 are the property tax, water sewerage tax,
paid in the name of the father of the respondent herein namely,
Parthasarathy. Ex.P5 is the receipt to show payment of license fee made
by Mr. Parthasarathy in the year 1986 to 1987. These documents prove
13 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 3060 of 2021
that the averments made in R.C.O.P. No. 1120 of 2015 that the father of
the respondent acquired the property and from her father, the respondent
has inherited the right over the property has been proved. On the
contrary, the revision petitioners merely raised a claim for title, but they
have not produced any scrap of document to substantiate the same.
Furthermore, the respondent has proved, by marking the rental agreement
that the relationship between the parties is that of the landlord and tenant.
19. Another legal aspect for consideration in this case is that the
suit in O.S. No. 3649 of 2015 has been filed by the 2nd revision petitioner
herein for a bare injunction. The suit was decreed on 11.08.2018. As
against the same, the respondent herein and two others have filed A.S. No.
98 of 2018. The appeal in A.S. No. 98 of 2018 was allowed on
30.07.2019 by setting aside the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 3649 of
2015. Admittedly, as against the same, the revision petitioners herein did
not prefer any second appeal and therefore, the grounds in raised in the
present Civil Revision Petition cannot be countenanced.
14 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 3060 of 2021
20. This Court in exercise of Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, can interfere with the order
passed by the learned Rent Controller or the Rent Control Appellate
Authority only if they are perverse, legally not sustainable or material
evidence have not been taken in to account for consideration. In the
present case, on going through the order passed by the Rent Controller as
well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority, this Court can only conclude
that there is no perversity or illegality or irregularity in such orders passed
by the learned Rent Controller in RCOP. No. 1120 of 2015 and confirmed
in R.C.A. No. 269 of 2017. Therefore, this Court declines to interfere
with those orders in the present Civil Revision under Section 25 of the Act
and the Civil Revision Petition filed by the revision petitioners is liable
only to be dismissed.
21. Accordingly, the Judgment dated 21.10.2021 passed by the
learned Appellate Authority cum VIII Small Causes Court Judge, Chennai
in RCA No.269 of 2017, confirming the order passed by the Rent
Controller cum Small Causes Court Judge, Chennai, in RCOP. No. 1120 of
2015 dated 20.02.2017, are confirmed. Consequently, the Civil Revision
15 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 3060 of 2021
Petition is dismissed. The revision petitioners are directed to vacate and
hand over the vacant possession of the premises in question to the
respondent herein within a period of three months i.e., on or before
07.09.2023. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
07.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation: Yes/No.
MSM
To
1. The VIII Small Causes Court Judge, Chennai.
2. The Section Officer, High Court of Madras.
16 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 3060 of 2021
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J
msm
CRP No. 3060 of 2021
07.06.2023
17 of 17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
