Dismissed

Anjugam v. M.Kaliyan (died)

Madras HC26 Nov 2021CRP(MD)/1957/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landlords filed a revision petition under the Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rental Control Act to set aside eviction orders confirming reversion for non-payment of rent. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that landlords failed to prove their title to the property or the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. Consequently, the lower court orders cannot be questioned.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed; no order as to costs.

Anjugam Vs M.Kaliyan (died) — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1957 of 2008

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 26.11.2021 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

¶4

C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1957 of 2008

¶5

1.Anjugam, W/o.Kaliyan 2.Kaliyan, S/o.Mayavan .. Petitioner/Appellant/ Petitioner/Landlord -vs1.M.Kaliyan (Died) .. Respondent/Respondent/ Respondent/Tenant 2.K.Renganayaki 3.K.Arumugan 4.K.Vanitha .. Respondents 2 to 4 [RR 2 to 4 are brought on records as LRs of the deceased R1 vide order dated 04.03.2021 made in C.M.P.(MD) Nos.5782 to 5784 of 2019 in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1957 of 2008]

¶6

Prayer :- Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rental Control Act to set aside the fair order and decretal order dated 10.12.2007 in R.C.A.No.30 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub-Judge), Trichirappalli confirming the fair and decretal order in R.C.O.P.No.175 of 2002 dated 24.06.2005 on the file of the Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif), Trichirappalli.

¶7

For Petitioners : Mr.Kavin Prasad for M/s.Veera Associates For RR 2 to 4 : Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan

¶8

ORDER

¶9

The petitioners, as landlords of the demised premises, had filed R.C.O.P.No.175 of 2002 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Trichy.

¶10

2.The said petition was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 24.06.2005 and the subsequent appeal in R.C.A.No.30 of 2005 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub-Judge), Trichirappalli also ended in dismissal by judgment and decree dated 10.12.2007. Challenging this concurrent order, the landlords are before this Court.

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1957 of 2008

¶14

3.The facts in brief are as follows:-

¶15

3.1.The petitioners herein had filed a petition seeking to evict the deceased 1^st respondent from the demised premises on the grounds of owners occupation and wilful default. In the petition, the petitioners would submit that the property belonged to one Mayavan, who was the father of the 2^nd petitioner and father-in-law of the 1^st petitioner. The deceased 1^st respondent is none other than the maternal uncle of the 2^nd petitioner. The property was settled by the 1^st petitioner's father-in-law in favour of the 1^st petitioner. The petitioners were living in the petition mentioned property till 1986 and thereafter, they have left for Ulundurpet, on account of their avocation. The monthly rent was earlier fixed as Rs.100/- and later it was enhanced to Rs.200/- in 1992.

¶16

3.2.It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased 1^st respondent had executed a document on 07.01.1992 styled as “t Pl ;L thlif ur PJ ” in favour of the 2^nd petitioner, who is none other than the husband of the 1^st petitioner. The Deed clearly described the 1^st petitioner as the owner of the property. The deceased 1^st respondent had failed to pay the agreed rent and when the rent was asked, he had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant.

¶17

4.The Rent Controller (District Munsif), Trichy, after hearing both the parties, had come to the conclusion that the petitioners have not been able to prove, by any shred of evidence, their right and title to the petition property. Therefore, there was no question of the deceased 1^st respondent vacating the premises on the ground of wilful default or owners occupation. The Court below concurred with the finding of the trial court and therefore, aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶18

5.Mr.Kavin Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would reiterate the contentions raised in the grounds of revision.

¶19

6.Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 prayed for confirming the concurrent judgment and decree of the court below.

¶20

7.Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the records.

¶21

8.The petitioners have come forward with the case that the property was settled on the 1^st petitioner by her father-in-law, viz., the 2^nd petitioner's father. The petitioners have not been able to file any document to show as to how they have title to the property. In fact, Ex.A1, dated 07.01.1992, which was originally marked, has thereafter been rejected by the Court, since the said

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1957 of 2008

¶25

document was not registered. However, the deceased 1^st respondent has filed documents to show his occupation and to prove that he is residing in the property as the owner, produced Ex.B1, Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 viz., house tax receipts, electricity card, election card etc. The petitioners have miserably failed to prove that they are the landlords in respect of the suit property and that the deceased 1^st respondent/defendant is their tenant.

¶26

9.In the absence of such proof, the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub-Judge), Trichirappalli, dated 10.12.2017 in R.C.A.No.30 of 2005, confirming the fair and decretal order, dated 24.06.2005 in R.C.O.P.No.175 of 2002 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Trichy cannot be called into question and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶28

// True Copy //

¶29

abr

¶30

Note:-In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate / litigant concerned.

¶31

¶32

2.The Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif), Trichy.

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.VEERA ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-36200[F] dated 26/11/2021 )

¶34

+1 CC to M/s.R. SUNDARSRINIVASSAN, Advocate ( SR-36467[F] dated 30/11/2021 )

¶35

C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.1957 of 2008 Dated: 26.11.2021

¶36

RD(4.01.2022) 3P 5C

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

Page 3 of 3

Anjugam v. M.Kaliyan (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjugam v. M.Kaliyan (died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Muthu(Died) Vs Chandrasekaran

Kanagalingam, Vs P.a.Manickam

P.Paalanivel Vs M/s.Shrirram City Union Finance Ltd.

Shamini Vs Sujan Christo

N.Raja Vs L.N.T.Mahadevan

P. Sivagamasundari, Vs K. Karthikeyan