Madras High Court
K.Rajendran vs P.S.Krishnamoorthy on 12 September, 2023
C.R.P.Nos.4174 & 4175 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.Nos.4174 & 4175 of 2009
K.Rajendran .. Petitioner
in both petitions
vs
P.S.Krishnamoorthy .. Respondent
in both petitions
Petitions filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (L
& RC) Act to set aside the decreetal order of Rent Control Appellate
Authority (VIII Court of Small Causes) Chennai in RCA Nos. 1575 &
1576 of 2003 dated 14.09.2009 as confirmed by Rent Controller
(XII Court of Small Causes) Chennai dated 14.11.2003 in RCOP
Nos. 69 & 71 of 2003.
For Petitioner : Mr.TS Baskaran
For Respondent : Mr.I.Mohamed Faizal
COMMON ORDER
The original bundles had been lost by the Registry. The same
were re-constructed by Mr.T.S.Baskaran, the learned counsel for
the petitioner. The revisions were heard on the basis of the re-
constructed papers.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4174 & 4175 of 2009
2. The civil revision petitions arise against an order in
R.C.A.No.1575 of 2003 and R.C.A.No.1576 of 2003 on the file of the
VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai dated 14.09.2009. RCA No.
1575 of 2003 and RCA No. 1576 of 2003 arose against RCOP No. 69
of 2003 and RCOP No. 71 of 2003 on the file of the XII Court of
Small Causes at Chennai. The said RCOPs were ordered on
14.11.2003.
3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be
referred to as landlord and tenant.
4. The revision petitioner is the tenant. The respondent
claims to be the landlord. According to the tenant, he entered
possession of the property by way of a lease deed entered into
between himself and A.S.R.Suryaprakash together with
R.Sureshkumar and one Ragunath Prasath Dhanuka. The said lease
agreement is said to have been entered into on 21.02.2002.
Mr.Suryaprakash had taken loans from the Park Town Benefit Fund
and, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested under Section 69 of
the Transfer of Property Act, the larger extent of the schedule
mentioned property was brought for auction. In the said auction,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4174 & 4175 of 2009
the property was purchased by the landlord herein. On the
purchase, he issued a notice to the tenant calling upon him to start
paying the rents to him. Instead of the tenant paying rents to the
landlord, they claimed that the erstwhile owner A.S.R.Suryaprakash
had issued a notice on 10.08.2002 informing them that he is
challenging the auction sale by which the landlord had purchased
the property and therefore, had requested them not to pay the
amounts to the landlord.
5. Aggrieved over the non-payment of rent, RCOP No.
1970 of 2004 and RCOP No.69 of 2003 were presented. In RCOP
No.69 of 2003, the landlord stated that the tenant is occupying the
shop for 150 sq ft in the ground floor on a monthly rent of
Rs.1500/-. Similarly, in RCOP No.71 of 2003, he pleaded that the
tenant was in occupation of 300 sq ft on the ground floor, for which
he had to pay monthly rent of Rs.3,000/-. To both RCOPs, a
detailed counter was filed by the tenant. The tenant projected the
rental agreement dated 22.02.2002 stating that he is in occupation
of 602 sq ft in the ground floor and was paying overall rent of
Rs.3000/- and had further pleaded, as security for occupation of the
premises, he had paid an advance of Rs.16 lakhs. The document
has been placed before me for perusal and I have to take note that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4174 & 4175 of 2009
the lease deed is valid for a period of 36 months and is an
unregistered one.
6. The two RCOPs were taken up along with other RCOP in
RCOP No. 68 of 2003. By a common judgment, eviction was ordered
on 14.11.2003. The grounds on which eviction was ordered were
that (i) the tenant had not produced before the Court any document
to show that there was dispute with respect to the ownership, (ii)
no proceedings were initiated for deposit of rents by the tenant and
(iii) the lease deed cannot be looked into because the document is
for a period of more than three years. On these findings, the trial
Court came to a conclusion, as admittedly, the tenant had not paid
the rent to the owner P.S.Krishnamoorthy, there was not only
default but also wilful default and ordered eviction. As narrated
above, as against the order passed by the Rent Controller, two
appeals were preferred before the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
RCA Nos. 1575 and 1576 of 2003. The Rent Control Appellate
Authority would hold that the respondent had not paid rents to the
landlord and that no evidence was produced before the Court to
show an application was filed under Section 9 of the Tamilnadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and also to prove the
payment of Rs.16 lakhs. Assailing this concurrent finding, the tenant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4174 & 4175 of 2009
is before me.
7. Mr.T.S.Baskaran, learned counsel appearing for the
tenant would vehemently contend as follows:-
(i) the Court below had not taken notice of the application
filed in RCOP No.1970 of 2004 on the file of the XIII Court of Small
Causes, which was an application under the provisions of Section
9(3) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
(ii) The appellate authority had failed to consider that the rent
receipts for the rents that had been paid to A.S.R.Suryaprakash, the
erstwhile landlord by the tenants from 17.12.2004 to 03.11.2007
have not been considered; and
(iii) Finally in order to demonstrate that the dispute which
exists between A.S.R. Suryaprakash and P.S.Krishnamoorthy, a
copy of the plaint in C.S.No.21 of 2004 has been produced before
the Court.
(iv) He would state all these were produced as additional
documents before the Court below but the same were dismissed
without assigning reasons.
8. Mr.I.Mohamed Faizal, learned counsel for the
respondent would argue that none of these documents are tenable,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4174 & 4175 of 2009
especially the lease deed. He would state that no proof had been
given that the tenant had in fact paid the rents and the lease
agreement itself is a ruse in order to get the RCOP defeated.
9. I have carefully considered the arguments of either side
and have gone through the records.
10. Dealing with the first point taken by Mr.T.S.Baskaran
about the filing of RCOP No.1970 of 2004, it is an interesting
argument because, the two eviction petitions that were filed were
numbered as RCOP No.69 & 71 of 2003 but the alleged petition filed
for deposit of rents was filed in the year 2004 and that too in the
fag end of the year on 22.11.2004. Had the petitioner been
bonafide, he would have immediately initiated steps under Section
9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. He
would not have waited for the landlord to file an application for
wilful default and merely one year thereafter presented a petition
under Section 9(3). Even assuming that Section 9(3) petition had
been filed, the major lacuna is that the order passed by the XIII
Court of Small Causes is a nullity as it is one without jurisdiction. It
is here, I usefully refer to Section 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act. Under Section 9 (3), where there is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4174 & 4175 of 2009
bonafide dispute as to who is the landlord, an application may be
filed before the notified authority. As per G.O.(Ms).No.43 dated
25.01.2001, the Court of Small Causes was not notified as Rent
Controller Authority under Section 9(3) of the Act. As per the said
G.O., the authority notified for the purpose of Section 9(3) was
before the District Collector of the city of Chennai. The Rent
Controller is not the civil court possessing right jurisdiction but has
to deal within the four corners of the Rent Controller Act. On a
perusal of Section 9(3) read with the aforesaid G.O, one can come
to a categorical conclusion that the order passed in RCOP No.1970
of 2004 is a nullity as the Court did not have jurisdiction to pass the
same.
11. Insofar as the tenant is concerned, he is duty bound to
pay the amounts to the person entitled to receive it. Under Section
109 of the Transfer of Property Act, on the sale of the property,
there is a statutory atonement from the erstwhile owner to the
present owner. The case of the petitioner is that he continues to pay
rent to A.P.S.Suryaprakash, who had lost his title by virtue of the
sale under Section 69 of TP Act. The bogey of title that was sought
to be raised under Section 9 of the Act does not arise here. Section
9 is not concerned with title but it deals only with the “persons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4174 & 4175 of 2009
entitled to receive the rent”. Reading Section 9 (3) with Section
109 of the Transfer of Property Act, once the sale had been
registered and title passed on to P.S.Krishnamoorthy, the said
P.S.Krishnamoorthy, as the landlord was entitled to receive the
rent. Therefore, the argument under Section 9(3) gone, all that
remains is the rent receipt issued by A.S.R. Suryaprakash pursuant
to the order of the Court in R.C.O.P.No.1970 of 2004. When the
order of the Court in R.C.O.P.No. 1970 of 2004 itself had been
passed by a Court without jurisdiction, any payment made pursuant
thereto would be of no avail to the civil revision petitioner. Apart
from the fact, there is no reason given in the affidavit as to why
these documents were not produced at the time of the trial.
Therefore, the lower appellate court rightly came to the conclusion
that the documents are neither necessary nor essential for the
decision in appeal.
12. Now turning to the argument of the correctness of the
order in appeal, what was available before the Court was a lease
deed which was filed under Ex.R3. I have already held the
document cannot be looked into for any purpose because the same
is for a period of three years and it is an unregistered one. What
raises a suspicion to a very high level is that the tenant has claimed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4174 & 4175 of 2009
that he paid an advance of Rs.16 lakhs towards rent for a paltry
sum of Rs.3,000/-. No reasonable person, let alone an astute
businessman would pay an astronomical figure of Rs.16 lakh as
advance. On the very face of it this sounds highly artificial and
unbelievable. Even if one were to ignore to take this into
consideration, when the tenant was put on notice about the
purchase by landlord P.S.Krishnamoorthy through the private
auction sale, he should have immediately attorned the tenancy in
his favour and started paying rents to him. On the contrary, he
wanted to inter meddle in the fight between P.S.Krishnamoorthy
and Mr.Suryaprakash. It is pertinent to point out that the tenant has
not explained as to whom he paid the rents from the date of
purchase by the landlord till the receipts that were filed before the
Rent Controller in January, 2008.
13. The Damocles sword of eviction was hanging over his
head. He ought to have atleast taken steps in the said eviction
petition to deposit the rents. Even now, he did not do so. The idea
of the tenant seems to be to get warmth by not paying the rents
while squatting over the property and stand by the sidelines and
watch the dispute between A.S.R.Suryaprakash and the landlord. I
am not convinced with any of the reasons given by Mr.Baskaran.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4174 & 4175 of 2009
Sitting in revision under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease
and Rent Control) Act, I am not willing to re-appreciate the
evidence as that is not the scope of the same. I do not find any
error or irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court or by the
lower appellate Court. They have applied correct principles of law to
the case. The tenant has not only reflected sanguine indifference
but has deliberately attempted to mislead the Court by filing Ex.R3
and the additional documents before the lower appellate court. This
shows the idea of the tenant is not to pay the rents but to continue
his free ride in the property as long as possible. The defence of
Ex.R3 failing, there is no explanation for the default having
committed by them. Therefore, I am constrained to confirm the
order in R.C.A.Nos.1575 and 1576 of 2003 dated 14.09.2009 on the
file of VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai in confirming the
judgment and decree in R.C.O.P.Nos. 69 and 71 of 2003 dated
14.11.2003.
14. Finding no merit, these civil revision petitions stand
dismissed. No costs.
12.09.2023
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
ssm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4174 & 4175 of 2009
To
1.The VIII Court of Small Causes,Chennai.
2.The XII Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.Nos.4174 & 4175 of 2009
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
ssm
C.R.P.Nos.4174 & 4175 of 2009
12.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
