Allowed

Adilakshmi v. N. Venugopal

Madras HC12 Feb 2021CRP/1538/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a landlord-tenant dispute where willful default and title denial were alleged, the High Court held the lower courts' orders perverse. Having acknowledged the petitioner's title via tenant's admission, the High Court allowed the civil revision, set aside the eviction bar, and directed the tenants to vacate within three months.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 24.09.2008 and 06.08.2012 set aside; Civil Revision Petition allowed; Respondents directed to vacate premises within three months.

Adilakshmi Vs N. Venugopal — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(P.D).No.1538 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.02.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

C.R.P.No.1538 of 2013
Adilakshmi ...Petitioner
Vs
1.N.Venugopal
2.Aravind ...Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the decree and Judgment dated 06.08.2012 in R.C.A.No.689 of 2008 on the file of VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, and thereby allow the R.C.O.P.No.119 of 2007 by setting aside the order dated 24.09.2008 in R.C.O.P.No.119 of 2007, on the file of XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Manohar For Respondents : Notice served - No appearence

¶9

¶10

1/9

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶12

C.R.P.(P.D).No.1538 of 2013

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The Civil Revision Petition is directed as against the decree and Judgment dated 06.08.2012 in R.C.A.No.689 of 2008 on the file of the VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, (herein after called as "the Rent Controller Appellate Authority"), and confirmed the order dated 24.09.2008 in R.C.O.P.No.119 of 2007 on the file of the XV Court of Small Causes, Chennai, (herein after called as "The Rent Controller"), thereby dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein for eviction of the respondents from the petition premises.

¶15

2.The petitioner is the landlord (hereinafter referred as "landlord"). The respondents are the tenants (hereinafter referred as "tenants"). The petitioner filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.119 of 2007 on the

¶16

ground of wilful default and denial of title by the respondents herein.

¶17

3.According to the petitioner, she purchased the petition premises

¶18

from the son of one-Thiripurasundari Ammal, in the year 1987 and she let out the premises for rent to the 1st respondent and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.900/-. Thereafter, the 1st respondent herein failed to pay the monthly rent from March 2006 onwards for the reason that the respondents 2/9

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶20

C.R.P.(P.D).No.1538 of 2013

¶21

denied the title of the petitioner herein. Therefore, the petitioner preferred the R.C.O.P.No.119 of 2007 and the learned Rent Controller dismissed the same on 24.09.2008 on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove his case with regard to landlord and tenant relationship. Aggrieved as against the order dated 24.09.2008 in R.C.O.P.No.119 of 2007, the petitioner herein has preferred the appeal before the VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.C.A.No.689 of 2008 and the same was also dismissed by the learned Rent Controller Appellate Authority by an order dated 06.08.2012.

¶22

4.As against the order dated 06.08.2012 in R.C.A.No.689 of 2008 in R.C.O.P.No.119 of 2007, the petitioner is before this Court with this Civil Revision Petition.

¶23

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the sale

¶24

deed dated 28.09.1987, which was marked as Ex.P.1, clearly shows that the petitioner purchased the petition premises from the son of one - Thiripura

¶25

Sundari Ammal. Originally, the land belongs to the temple-Ravieswarar Temple and in which the said Tiripura Sundari Ammal, put up construction. The super structure was purchased by the petitioner and he became the absolute owner of the petition premises vide sale deed dated 28.09.1987. In

¶26

3/9

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶28

C.R.P.(P.D).No.1538 of 2013

¶29

fact the 1st respondent running a business of Press in the premises. Thereafter, it was handed over to the 2nd respondent herein, though the business was handed over to the 2nd respondent (son of the 1st respondent), the 1st respondent also looking after the business. He further submitted that the 2nd respondent was examined as R.W.1 and he categorically admitted the fact that the petitioner purchased the petition premises by the sale deed dated 28.09.1987. After the purchase of the petition premises, the electricity service connection and other revenue documents are transferred in the name of the petitioner. When, he categorically admitted the said fact, he cannot question the title of the petition premises. He further submitted that both the Courts below dismissed the petitions for eviction and as such even till today, the respondents did not pay any single paise as rent to the petitioner for the petition premises.

¶30

6.Though notice was served on the respondents and name also

¶31

printed in the causelist, no one has appeared on behalf of them, either by person or through counsel.

¶32

7.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

¶33

4/9

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶35

C.R.P.(P.D).No.1538 of 2013

¶36

materials available on record.

¶37

8.The petitioner purchased the petition premises by the sale deed dated 28.09.1987, which was marked as Ex.P.1. The Exs.P.2 and 3 are revealed that the petitioner paid Corporation tax and the Metro water tax for the petition premises. While being so, the respondents failed to pay the monthly rent to the petitioner and they are denying the title of the petition premises. Therefore, the petitioner filed a petition for eviction on the ground of willful default and also on the ground of denial of title. Whereas, the case of the respondents is that the land belongs to the "Ravieswarar Temple" and to prove the same they marked the Ex.R.4. Further, the land was occupied by the occupants and they put up their own construction for shelter in the vacant land and paying land rent to the temple.

¶38

9.According to the petitioner, the land was leased out to oneThiripura Sundari Ammal by the temple authority and she put up construction and the same was purchased by the petitioner, through the son of Thiripura Sundari Ammal. Therefore, admittedly the land belongs to the temple and the super structure was put up by the Thiripura Sundari Ammal and the same was purchased by the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the

¶39

5/9

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶41

C.R.P.(P.D).No.1538 of 2013

¶42

petitioner is paying the electricity charges and Metro water charges and also property tax for the petition premises. In fact the electricity connection was transferred in the name of the petitioner and the respondents paying the electricity bill in accordance with the Meter reading. Therefore, the petitioner proved the ownership of the petition premises and as such the respondents bound to pay the rent to the petitioner herein. In so far as the willful default in payment of rent is concerned, admittedly, the respondents did not pay the rent for the petition premises from March 2006 onwards. Even till today, the respondents are not paying the rent. When the ownership of the petition premises is proved by the petitioner, she is entitled for the rent to be collected from the respondents herein.

¶43

10.Further on perusal of deposition of R.W.1, he deposed as

¶44

follows:-

¶45

" ;jphpg[uRe;jhp mk;khspd; kfdplk; ,Ue;J kDjhuh; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l

¶46

fpua gj;jpuk; K:yk; kDr;brhj;jpid th';fpa[s;sjhy; kDjhuh; jhd; mjd; chpikahsh; vd;why; rhpay;y/ fjt[ vz;/60-1?y; cs;s kw;w thlifjhuh;fs;

¶47

thlifia kDjhuhplk; brYj;Jfpwhh;fs; vd;why; ? mJgw;wp vdf;F bjhpahJ/ gpu!; elj;Jtjw;F kpd;rhu trjp njit vd;why; mJ rhpjhd;/ kDf;filf;F

¶48

6/9

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶50

C.R.P.(P.D).No.1538 of 2013

¶51

kpd;rhu trjp cs;sJ/ kDf;fl;olj;jpYs;s kpd;,izg;g[ jw;nghJ kDjhuh; bgahpy;

¶52

cs;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ mJ Vw;fdnt jphpg[uRe;jhp mk;khspd; bgahpy; ,Ue;jJ/

¶53

kDjhuh; kDr;brhj;jpid fpuak; th';fpat[ld; kpd;,izg;gpid jdJ bgaUf;F

¶54

khw;wpf; bfhz;lhh;/ kPl;lh; uPo';go tUk; bjhifapid ehd; nehpilahf

¶55

kpd;thhpaj;jpw;F brYj;Jfpnwd;/ "

¶56

11.Therefore, R.W.1 admitted the fact that the electricity service connection was transferred to the name of the petitioner herein subsequent to her purchase from the son of Thiripura Sundari Ammal and his father was looking after their business in the petition premises and thereafter he took over the business. Further, he deposed that for the petition premises, he is paying the electricity charges and the electricity service connection stood in the name of the petitioner. Though the respondent claimed that the petition premises purchased by his father from one Thiripura Sundari Ammal, no iota of evidence was produced before the Court below to support his contention. Without considering those aspects, both the Courts below dismissed the petitions for eviction on the ground of willful default as well as the denial of title and as such this Court finds that the orders passed by the Court below are perverse and liable to be set aside.

¶57

7/9

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶59

C.R.P.(P.D).No.1538 of 2013

¶60

12.Accordingly, the order dated 06.08.2012 in R.C.A.No.689 of

¶61

2008 on the file of the VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai, confirmed the order dated 24.09.2008 in R.C.O.P.No.119 of 2007 on the file of the XV Court of Small Causes, Chennai, is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to vacate and hand over the petition premises to the petitioner herein within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶62

12.02.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Jer
To
1.The VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

¶63

8/9

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶65

C.R.P.(P.D).No.1538 of 2013

¶66

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J,

¶67

Jer

¶68

C.R.P.(P.D).No.1538 of 2013
12.02.2021

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶70

9/9

Adilakshmi v. N. Venugopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adilakshmi v. N. Venugopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalimuthu, Vs Thillaisekaran

Punjab National Bank Vs G.Vijayakumar

Janaba.Shabzadi Vs the Estate Officer

E.Harigovindarajan @ Vs Hema Elayalwar

Angamuthu Vs Venkatachalam

K.Babu Vs Tr.Jaishankar