Madras High Court
Mr.E. Sakthivel vs Mr.D.L. Balaji on 7 August, 2024
C.R.P. No. 2737 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE M.R JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P. No. 2737 of 2024
&
C.M.P. No. 14504 of 2024
Mr.E. Sakthivel ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. Mr.D.L. Balaji
2. DCB Bank Limited,
rep. by its Authorised Officer,
Retail Assets – Collection,
1st Floor, No.6, Rajaji Salai,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034. ..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to set aside the docket order dated 08.04.2024 passed in M.P.SR. No.
10497 of 2024 in RLTOP No. 152 of 2023 and consequently direct the
1\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P. No. 2737 of 2024
Hon'ble X Judge, Small Causes Court to number the application and dispose
of the same.
For Petitioner :: Mr.K.V. Sundararajan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition arises against the docket order dated
08.04.2024 passed in M.P.SR. No. 10497 of 2024 in RLTOP No. 152 of
2023 and consequently direct the X Judge, Small Causes Court to number
the application and dispose of the same.
2. The civil revision petitioner is a tenant under the 1st respondent.
There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. The
1st respondent invoked the provisions of Section 21(2)(a) of 'The Tamil
Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants
Act, 2017 (Act 42 of 2017)'[hereinafter 'said Act' for the sake of
convenience] to present R.L.T.O.P. No. 151 of 2023. It is not in dispute
that there is no agreement between the parties as required under Section
4(1) of the said Act. The simple case of the 1 st respondent is that as there is
no agreement between the parties, post invocation of said Act, the tenant
2\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
had to face the wrath of Section 21(2)(a) of the said Act.
3. Pending the proceedings, the tenant filed M.P.SR.No. 10497 of
2024 to implead the 2nd respondent Bank as a party to the proceedings.
According to him, the property in which he is residing as a tenant, had been
mortgaged, with the 2nd respondent Bank. For the default committed by the
1st respondent, invoking the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Security Interest Act, 2002 hereinafter ['SARFAESI
Act in short], the 2nd respondent Bank brought the property for auction. He
would state that the properties were purchased by his wife and she had also
deposited 25% of the bid amount. It is also stated that the auction is yet to
be confirmed. The list of dates and events produced by Mr.K.V.
Sundararajan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, shows that the
landlord has preferred S.A. No. 357 of 2023 before the Debts Recovery
Tribunal II.
4. Pleading that the 2nd respondent Bank is a necessary party to the
Rent Control proceedings, M.P.SR No. 10497 of 2024 was filed by the
3\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
tenant. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition stating that there
is no purpose in impleading the 2nd respondent Bank against which the
present civil revision petition is filed.
5. Mr.K.V. Sundararajan would submit that by virtue of the
judgment of the Apex Court in CELIR LLP Vs. BAFNA MOTORS
(MUMBAI) PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS [(2024) 2 SCC Pg.1] ,
the Bank is a proper and necessary party. He would state that as the property
in question has been auctioned by the 2nd respondent Bank, the Bank has to
be impleaded in the R.L.T.O.P proceedings.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions of
Mr.K.V. Sundararajan.
7. In order to succeed before the Rent Controller in a proceeding
under Section 21(2)(a) of the said Act, the landlord has to prove that
(i) There exists landlord- tenant relationship between the parties and
(ii) There is no agreement existing as provided under Section 4(1) of the
4\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
said Act.
In order to prove the same, the presence of the mortgagee is neither
essential nor necessary. For the purpose of ordering eviction, the existence
of the 2nd respondent is absolutely irrelevant.
8. Now, turning to the judgment of the Supreme Court relied on
by Mr.K.V. Sundararajan is concerned, the issue before the Court was
whether a borrower retains the right of redemption over a property after
issuance of sale notice under SARFAESI Act. The Supreme Court answered
the issue against the mortgagor and held that once a sale notice is issued,
right of redemption of mortgagor cannot be exercised. Thus, the
proposition of law laid down in CELIR LLP's CASE cannot be utilised by a
tenant for impleading the Bank. In fact, SARFAESI Act does not deal with
the relationship of landlord-tenant. Even if it were to be under the
Concurrent List, there is no legislation made by the Parliament as of today
dealing with the relationship between landlord and tenant. The above
observation is made only to show that the relationship of landlord and
tenant is governed by State Legislation and the SARFAESI Act does not
5\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deal with the same. Furthermore, even if the landlord/respondent herein
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
nv
were to lose her SARFAESI appeal and the civil revision petitioner's wife
were to become the owner, she would still be entitled to proceed against the
civil revision petitioner/tenant for the purpose of eviction. This makes it
abundantly clear that neither the Bank nor the successful auction purchaser
are essential parties to the Rent Control proceedings.
9. For all the reasons stated above, I do not find any error in the
order passed by the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai and
the civil revision petition stands dismissed. Since the proceedings are under
the said Act, the learned Rent Controller is requested to expedite the
proceedings and complete the same as expeditiously as possible. No costs.
Connected C.M.P. is closed.
07.08.2024
nv
To
6\7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
