Madras High Court
Chandiran vs Periyanayagam on 7 June, 2023
CRP.No. 450 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. 450 of 2021
Chandiran .. Petitioner
Versus
Lourdu Marie Santho (Died)
1. Periyanayagam
2. Anthonia Santho .. Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Pondicherry Building
Lease and Rent Control Act, 1980, praying to set aside the judgmet and decree
dated 21.02.2020 passed in RCA.No. 39 of 2018 on the file of the Second
Additional District Judge, Puducherry, confirming the fair order and decretal
order dated 31.10.2018 passed in RCOP. No. 51 of 2012 on the file of the
Court of Rent Controller-II, Puducherry.
For petitioner : Mr. P. John Bosco
For Respondents : Mrs. R. Swarnalatha
ORDER
The revision petitioner suffered an order of dismissal dated 31.10.2018
passed by the learned Rent Controller in RCOP. No. 51 of 2012 and it was
also confirmed by the Appellate Authority in RCA.NO. 39 of 2018 dated
21.02.2020. Aggrieved by the concurrent orders of dismissal, the present
Civil Revision Petition is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
2. As per the averments in RCOP. No. 51 of 2012, the revision
petitioner has purchased the property in question by means of a registered sale
deed dated 27.03.2012, registered as Document No. 1732 of 2012 on the file
of District Registrar, Pondicherry, executed by Smt. Rajalakshmi, Daughter of
late. Kandasamy and others. According to the revision petitioner, the property
in question was originally owned by one Kandasamy. The property was
allotted to Mr. Kandasamy by the Secretary, Health Education and Association
Welfare Department, Pondicherry through the order of allotment dated
18.11.1967 registered as Document No.2341 of 1967, on the file of District
Registrar Office, Pondicherry. According to the revision petitioner, the
original owner Kandasamy had let out the property for rent in favour of the
husband of the first respondent for a monthly rent of Rs.200/- and he settled in
Ennore, Chennai. For the purpose of collecting the rent from the husband of
the first respondent, he used to visit Pondicherry once in six months. The said
Kandasamy died and after his death, his legal-heirs repeated demands and
attempted to collect the rent from the respondents herein, but they could not.
While so, after the purchasing the property, the revision petitioner got attorned
the tenancy in his favour and therefore, he demanded payment of rent from the
respondents. As the respondents did not pay the rent to the revision petitioner
he had sent a notice dated 06.12.2012 calling upon the respondents to pay the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
rent from 27.03.2012 interalia made a demand to vacate the premises. A reply
dated 17.12.2012 was sent by the respondent denying the averments in the
notice. It is specifically stated in the reply notice dated 17.12.2012 that the
tenancy could not have been attorned in favour of the petitioner and they also
refused to handover the vacant possession of the premises. It is further stated
that the respondents are residing in the petition mentioned premises on their
own right. It is in those circumstances, the petitioner has filed RCOP. No. 51
of 2012 under Section 10 (2) (i) (b) (vii) and 3 (9) (i) of the Pondicherry
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 praying to evict the respondents
from the schedule mentioned property on the ground of willful default in
payment of rent and for having denied his lawful title.
3. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondents 2 and 3
repudiating the petition averments. According to the respondents,
Mr.Kandasamy originally leased out the property in favour of the husband of
the first respondent and he paid rent to Kandasamy regularly till his death.
However, on 08.09.1988 the husband of the first respondent entered into an
agreement of sale with Kandasamy to purchase the property. Subsequently on
30.03.1989 an unregistered sale deed came to be executed in favour of the
husband of the first respondent. The first respondent died on 24.09.2012
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
leaving behind the respondents as his legal heirs. During her life time, on
30.03.1989 itself, the first respondent had executed a Will in favour of the
respondents 2 and 3. It is also stated that even on 30.03.1989 when
Mr.Kandasamy executed the unregistered sale deed in favour of the husband
of the first respondent, the original title deeds have been handed over to the
husband of the first respondent. Further on the strength of the Will executed
by the first respondent, the respondents 2 and 3 have constructed separate
houses where they are residing now and electricity service connection was also
given to the premises and it stands in the name of the second respondent.
Therefore, it is submitted that there is no landlord and tenants relationship
between the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 and they prayed for
dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.
4. Before the learned Rent Controller, on behalf of the petitioner, he
examined himself as PW1 and Rajalakshmi, one of his vendors and daughter
of Late. Kandasamy was examined as PW2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked.
On behalf of the respondent, the second respondent examined himself as RW1
and S. Anbajagane was examined as RW2 and Exs.R1 to Ex.R14 were
marked. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the original petition by
concluding that there is no landlord and tenants relationship between the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
parties. It was also concluded that even though the respondents claimed right
through the unregistered sale agreement under Ex.R3 and the unregistered sale
deed will not confer any title to the property, the unregistered sale deed was of
the year 1989 and the petitioner claiming right over the property purchased by
him only in the year 2012. However, after purchase there is nothing on record
to show that the lease itself was terminated at the instance of the petitioner.
When the respondents denied the title of the petitioner the petitioner ought to
have filed a Civil Suit for declaration of his title. As the dispute pertains to
title, it cannot be adjudicated by the Rent Control Court and it is proper for the
petitioner to file a Civil Suit. Accordingly, the learned Rent Controller
dismissed the original petition.
5. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 31.10.2018 passed in
RCOP. No. 51 of 2012, the revision petitioner filed RCA. No. 39 of 2018. The
Appellate Court also concurred with the conclusion arrived at by the learned
Rent Controller and held that there is no attornment of tenancy in favour of the
petitioner. It was also held that the petitioner cannot be presumed to be the
landlord of the respondents. When it is claimed by the petitioner that he is the
landlord, it is his duty to prove the subsisting tenancy between him and the
respondents. When the petitioner admitted that he has not received any rent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
from the respondents or he has not produced any receipts to establish that the
respondents were tenants under Kandasamy and subsequently purchased the
property through an unregistered sale deed, such rival claim over the title to
the property can be adjudicated only by a competent Civil Court.
Accordingly, the Appellate Authority dismissed the Rent Controller's appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate
Authority erroneously shifted the burden of proof on the petitioner to prove
that there existed the landlord and tenancy relationship between the parties. It
is the specific case of the petitioner is that he has purchased the property on
27.03.2012 by means of a registered sale deed and within four months
therefrom, he claimed right over the property and issued a notice dated
06.07.2012 calling upon the respondents to pay the arrears of rent from June,
2012 and also to vacate the property and hand over the vacant possession to
him. The notice dated 06.07.2012 would establish that the petitioner had
attorned the tenancy and claimed a legal right over the property as a owner.
Even though the respondents claimed a right over the property through an
unregistered agreement of sale, the Court below failed to take note of the fact
that the unregistered agreement will not confer any right, title or interest over
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
the property. On the other hand, the petitioner purchased the property through
a registered sale deed dated 27.03.2012 and it partakes the character of a valid
and legal document.
7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
respondents 2 and 3 made a claim for right over the property on the basis of
unregistered agreement of sale. It is needless to mention that if for any reason
the vendor did not execute a registered sale deed in their favour, they ought to
have filed a suit for specific performance to obtain a sale deed in their favour,
but they did not do so. On the other hand, the respondents are squatting over
the property on the strength of an unregistered agreement of sale said to have
been executed by the deceased Kandasamy. Further, there is nothing to show
that the respondents are residing in the property in their own rights except as
tenants, under the vendor of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner examined
one of her vendors as PW2 and she has categorically stated that during the life
time of her father Kandasamy, the respondents did not pay any rent to him.
Such a statement of PW2 would make it abundantly clear that the respondents
continue to reside in the property in question only as a tenant under
Kandasamy and they have never claimed title from Kandasamy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
8. As regards the observations made by the Rent Controller as well
as the Appellate Authority that the petitioner has to only approach the Civil
Court for remedy, the learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently
contend that such an observation is legally not sustainable. In this context, the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner placed reliance on the decision of
this Court in the case of S. Sugumaran v. Seenu alias Natarajan, reported in
2000 (1) LW 897, wherein it was held that mere denial of title by the tenant
will not oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court. The learned Rent
Controller will have to scrutinize the evidence and conclusion will have to be
arrived thereof as to whether denial of title by the tenant is bona fide or mala
fide. In Paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 it was held as follows:-
13. The above decision was approved by a Division Bench
of Kerala High Court in the decision reported in (1995) 1 Ker LT
553, Aboobacker v. Girija, wherein the Division Bench held
thus,
"We too are of the view that the Court whose
jurisdiction stands ousted must have the satisfaction that
there are strong or at least substantial grounds or
sufficient materials in supported the plea being upheld by
the Civil Court must be fairly on the higher side...."
It is clear from the above decisions that a mere denial will not
oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. Court will have to
scrutinize the evidence and conclusion will have to be arrived.
While arriving at the conclusions, the Court will have to find
whether there are materials in support of the plea being upheld
the Civil Court and if the case is tried by the Civil Court, there is
higher chance of success. In this case, Rent Controller has not
entered such a finding. Mere production of Ex.A1 and evidence
of RW2 were held as sufficient to oust the jurisdiction. Even
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
evidence of RW2 was not fully considered by the learned Rent
Controller.
14. If this is the scope of enquiry, to consider the question
of bona-fide denial of title, I do not think that appellate authority
went wrong in re-appreciating evidence rendered by Rent
Controller and entered his finding as to scope of bona-fides.
Much reliance was placed on the evidence of RW2 by the Rent
Controller. Before proceeding with the evidence of RW2, it must
be noted that landlord Rohini alias Usha specifically denied
execution of Ex.R1. RW2 is one of the witness to Ex.R1.
Nowhere in his evidence he said that he saw Rohini signing
Ex.R1. According to him, he went to Respondent to purchase
gunny bags and respondent asked him to accompany him.
Respondent took RW2 to Rohiniammal's house where he saw
Rohiniammal and her mother. According to him, she asked
respondent whether he got agreement prepared along with
advance of Rs.50,000/- and respondent produced agreement to
Rohiniammal's mother and mother and daughter after going
through the document and after receiving advance stated that sale
price is Rs.1,40,000/- and he can pay balance amount when she
gives title deeds and other documents. It is also said that sale
could be concluded at an early date because there is a clause that
he will not pay rent from that date onwards. There is no
statement in the chief examination that he saw Rohiniammal
signing Ex.R1 agreement. In cross-examination he only said that
he does not know where Ex.R1 got typed and he also did not read
the contents of Ex.R1. He saw Rohiniammal for the first and last
time. He further said that when he was taken by respondent,
Ex.R1 was complete in form. He also saw Rohiniammal's mother
for the first and lasts time and he further said that he can identify
her and she will be more than 75 years. He also did not see other
witnesses previously. Even in subsequent portion of cross
examination also she did not say that he saw Rohiniammal
affixing her signature.
9. Similarly the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on
the decision of this Court in the case of Margaret Getty Rene Gonselvez v.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
St. Therasa Church, Mahe and Others reported in 2022 (3) LW 447,
wherein in Paragraph No.12 it was specifically held that the dispute with
respect to the ownership of the property raised by a tenant can very well be
gone into by the Rent Controller by appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence. In Paragraph No. 12 it was held as follows:-
"12. At the outset, it must be noted that the learned
Rent Controller Court in its order dated 18.09.2006 in
RCOP.No. 7 of 2009 has rendered a finding that in
exercise of the powers conferred under the Pondicherry
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 it cannot
go into the question of title. This conclusion reached by
the Rent Controller is per se illegal. It is true that the
Rent Controller had the trappings of the Civil Court and it
is empowered to go into the question of title inter se
between the parties to the original petition. When there is
dispute with respect to title among the parties or if a
tenant disputes the ownership of the landlord, such
questions can very well be gone into by the Rent
Controller by appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence. Therefore, the finding rendered by the learned
Rent Controller declining to go into the question of title
among the wrangling parties cannot be countenanced by
this Court. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the
learned Rent Controller that it has no power to deal with
the dispute over the title is liable only to be interested by
this Court. In this context, this Court is fortified by the
decision of this Court made in S.Sugumaran's case (cited
supra) wherein it was held as follows:-
"12......It is clear from the above decisions that a
mere denial will not oust the jurisdiction of the Rent
Controller. Court will have to scrutinize the evidence and
conclusion will have to be arrived. While arriving at the
conclusion, the Court will have to find out whether there
are materials in support of the plea being upheld by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Civil Court and if the case is tried by the Civil Court,
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
there is higher chance of success. In this case, Rent
Controller has not entered such a finding. Mere
production of Ex.R1 and evidence of RW2 were held as
sufficient to oust the jurisdiction. Even evidence of RW2
was not fully considered by the Rent Controller."
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision
of the Rajasthan High Court in Devendra Singh and Ors v. State of
Rajasthan and Ors, reported in AIR 2002 (Rajasthan) 66, wherein also it
was held that the status of a tenant will not be improved by virtue of an
agreement of sale entered into with the original owner. As long as the
agreement of sale did not culminate into that of a sale deed, the status of the
tenant will the remain as a tenant only. In Paragraph No. 8 of the Rajasthan
High Court decision, it was held as follows:-
"8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival
contentions, and have gone through the pleadings of the
parties, and the documents produced by them. Admittedly
even at the time of sale of each portion of the property in
question as purchased by each of the petitioner its value was
more than Rs.100/- and in view of the clear language of
Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act any transfer of
such property could be made only by a registered document.
It is significant to note that Section 54 comprehends the
value of the property, as distinguished from the purported
consideration of alienation, and therefore, even if the
property worth more than Rs.100/- is transferred for the
consideration of less than Rs.100/ it cannot be so done
without a registered document. In this view of the matter,
sine the document in favour of the petitioners is admittedly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis unregistered, it cannot have the effect of conferring any title
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
on them. In that view of the matter, the petitioners are not
entitled to challenge the sale of the land, sold as land
belonging to respondent No.8. At this stage, I may observe
tht the respondent 8 earlier filed a writ petition being No.
1624 of 1984 seeking to challenge the order of confirmation
of sale, so also the sale certificate, and that writ petition has
already been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court
vide order dated 18.09.1992 (Annexure R-5/1). Admittedly
the respondent 8 has not taken any further proceedings
thereafter. At this very place I may also point out that two
sets of writ petitions were filed by the same learned counsel.
Writ Petition No.1624/1984 was admitted on 28.06.1984
wherein the interim stay granted was only staying the
recovery of the amount, while the other three writ petitions
were admitted on 23.08.1984, and on that day they were
ordered to be connected with Writ Petition No.1624/1984.
Thereafter, all the four writ petitions did come to be listed
on 29.09.1986, on which date the stay in W.P. No.
1624/1984 was confirmed, while it was not pressed in the
other three writ petitions. It is in this background that writ
petition No. 1624/1984 was dismissed by the Division
Bench, and at that time the other three writ petitions were
not got heard, or were not connected, in what
circumstances, is not known. Be that as it may the fact
remains that in these circumstances in view of the dismissal
of the writ petition No. 1624/1984, and that the dismissal
having not been brought to the notice of the Court, while
arguing the other writ petitions, though they were also
argued by the same learned counsel, petitioners cannot be
allowed to challenge the validity of the auction proceedings
on the anvil of procedural illegalities or irregularities."
11. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further placed
reliance on the decision of this Court in S.M. Sultan Rowthar v.
Kothandarama Naidu reported in 2000 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 403. In that case,
it was held that the Rent Controller has to satisfy himself that denial of title
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
made by the tenant is bonafide. If the denial of title is malafide then the Rent
Controller has to pass an order of eviction, to evict the tenant. In Paragraph
Nos. 25 and 30 it was held as follows:-
"25. To consider the question as to whether there is bonafide
or not, Court must have the satisfaction that there are
substantial grounds or sufficient materials in support of the
plea and Court must also form an opinion that chance of plea
taken by tenant is likely to be upheld by Civil Court or there
is fair chance of success by tenant. Only on such satisfaction
Rent Controller will be justified in finding thta denial of title
is bonafide. I that is the evidence that has to be let in, can it
be said that the claim of first respondent is bonafide. He
admitted that he is a tenant of Pattammal by executing a
registered lease deed. He also admitted payment of rent and
regularly paying rent till sale deed was executed. The fact
that petitioner has obtained right of Pattammal is not
disputed. Merely because there is no attornment, can it be
said that denial is bonafide, especially taking into
consideration the definition of landlord under Rent Control
Act read with Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act.
30. Appellate authority has simply stated that because
the litigation is pending between the parties, denial is
bonafide. Merely because third person claims title to the
property, that by itself may not be a ground to hold that
denial is bonafide. Appellate Authority did not consider the
settled legal principles when it held that there is bonafide in
the denial nor it has considered the scope of enquiry when
such contention is taken. As was held in Thangappan's case,
Court has to go into the evidence to test the veracity of
denial and only then the question as to whether there is
bonafide or not could be decided."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
By placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, the learned
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Rent Controller
as well as the Appellate Authority erroneously refused to enter into a finding
with respect to bonafides of the respondents and tenant to dispute the title of
the property in favour of the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned Rent
Controller as well as the Appellate Authority directed the petitioner to
workout his remedy by filing a Civil Suit instead of examining the dispute
with respect to title to the property. The learned counsel, therefore, payed for
allowing this Civil Revision Petition.
13. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
would submit that even on 30.03.1989, when the agreement of sale was
entered into between the deceased Kandasamy and the husband of the first
respondent, title deeds pertaining to the property have been handed over to the
husband of the first respondent. Further, the husband of the first respondent
was put in possession of the property and from that date, the respondents are in
possession and enjoyment of the premises in question as a owner thereof. The
respondents also in their reply dated 17.07.2012 has categorically denied the
assertion of the petitioner as regards the ownership of the property in question.
Above all under Ex.R4 dated 05.09.1988, a consent letter was executed by the
legal heirs of the deceased Kandasamy in favour of the husband of the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
respondent consenting to handover possession of the property. Thus it is
submitted that the respondents are in possession of the property in question on
their own rights and therefore, the claim of the petitioner for ownership of the
property is not bona fide. As there is no landlord and tenancy relationship
between the parties, the prayer for eviction of the respondents on the ground
willful default in payment of rent will not arise. Further, under Ex.R7 the first
respondent had executed a registered Will in favour of the respondents 2 and 3
and after the death of the first respondent, the Will came into force. On the
strength of Ex.R7, the respondents 2 and 3 have also constructed two separate
houses and residing there. The learned Rent Controller as well as Appellate
Authority have carefully considered the above aspects and come to a definite
conclusion that the claim of the petitioner for title has not been established
besides that the respondents are in possession of the property on their own
right. The respondents claimed title from the very same owner, namely,
Kandasamy, who has executed the unregistered agreement of sale dated
08.09.1988 (Ex.R3) and put the respondents in possession of the property in
question. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed for
dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition.
14. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
15. Originally, this Civil Revision Petition was filed as against the
respondents 1 to 3. However, pending the revision petition, the first
respondent died and her legal heirs are already on record as respondents 2 and
3 and they have contested this case.
16. At the outset it must be stated that both the Rent Controller as
well as the Appellate Authority have refused to go into the question of title
and directed the petitioner to file a civil suit to establish his title. This
conclusion on the part of the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate
Authority are legally not sustainable. It is well settled that whenever there is a
dispute with respect to title, the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate
Authority have to examine the same, scrutinize the evidence and render a
finding that the denial of title is bonafidee or not. In this context, the learned
counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on several judgments mentioned
supra. Among those decisions, in the decision of this Court in S.M. Sultan
Rowthar v. Kothandarama Naidu (mentioned supra) it was authoritatively held
that the Court must have the satisfaction that there are substantial grounds or
sufficient materials in support of the plea and Court must also form an opinion
that chance of plea taken by tenant is likely to be upheld by Civil Court or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
there is fair chance of success by tenant. Therefore, it is evident that the Rent
Controller has to go into the question of denial of title by the tenant and to
render a finding as to whether it is bonafidee or malafidee. Such question can
very well be gone into by the learned Rent Controller and the refusal on the
part of the learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority to go
into the question of title among the wrangling parties cannot be countenanced
by this Court. Therefore, on this Court, the orders passed by the learned Rent
Controller as well as the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside.
17. As regards the ownership of the property, it must be stated that
the respondents have not produced any documents to prove their title. Even as
admitted by them, the husband of the first respondent, under Ex.R3 dated
08.09.1988, had only entered into an agreement of sale. An unregistered
document will not create or confer title to the property in favour of the
respondents. On the other hand, the petitioner purchased the property through
a registered sale deed dated 27.03.2012 (Ex.P1), registered as Document
No.1732 of 2012. Soon after purchasing the property the petitioner raised a
demand for payment of rent and asserted that the tenancy has been attorned in
his favour. When the respondents did not pay rent, a notice dated 06.07.2012
was issued interalia seeking eviction of the respondents. On receipt of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
notice, a reply notice dated 17.07.2012 was sent by the respondents. It is
needless to mention that the issuance of notice dated 06.07.2012 is in
compliance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. Further, the
agreement of sale dated 08.09.1988 (Ex.R3) is clearly hit by the provisions of
Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and it will not confer any right in
favour of the respondents. It is needless to mention that by virtue of the
unregistered Agreement of Sale, the title to the property would have been
vested with the vendor of the respondents continuously until it was sold in
favour of the petitioner on 27.03.2012. In any event, the unregistered
agreement of sale will not create or confer any right, title or interest in favour
of the respondents in the property. It is also an admitted fact that pursuant to
Ex.R3 dated 08.09.1988 the respondents have not taken any steps to get a sale
deed registered in their favour. Therefore, the possession of the respondents in
the property would be presumed to be in the capacity of tenant. If that be so,
the respondents have an obligation to pay rent to the petitioner from
27.03.2012. The deed on which the petitioner purchased the property would
only make the position clear that there exist the landlord and tenancy
relationship among the petitioner and the respondents. By virtue of the sale
deed under Ex.P1 dated 27.03.2012, the transferee/the petitioner become the
landlord of the premises in question by operation of law. Both the Rent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have failed to take note of the
above aspects and it warrants interference of this Court.
18. For all the above reasons mentioned above, the order dated
21.02.2020 passed in RCA.No. 39 of 2018 on the file of II Additional District
Judge, confirming the order dated 31.10.2018 passed in RCOP. No. 51 of 2012
on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Pondicherry, are set aside. The Civil
Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs. The respondents are directed to
vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the property in question to the
revision petitioner within a period of three months (i.e.) 30th September, 2023
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
07.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
MSM
To
1. The II Aditional District Judge, Puducherry
2. The Court of Rent Controller-II, Puducherry.
3. The Section Officer, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
msm
CRP.No. 450 of 2021
07.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
