Tenant sought to set aside an eviction order following dismissal of her condonation application for restoring a set-aside ex parte rent-arrears order. Court held other legal heirs need not be impleaded as they lived elsewhere, found no sufficient cause shown for delay, and dismissed the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.No. 2018 of 2020 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 25.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
C.R.P.No. 2018 of 2020 and
C.M.P.No.12592 of 2020
R.Valarmathi
...Petitioner
Vs .
K.Dhanraj
...Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, set aside the order an decree dated 30.08.2019 passed by the Hon'ble District Munsif Court, Thiruvottiyur in M.P.No.31 of 2019 in M.P.No.1 of 2019 in RCOP.No.29 of 2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Nandhagopal For Respondent : Mr.P.Jagadeesan
O R D E R
The revision has been filed seeking to set aside the order and decree
dated 30.08.2019 passed by the District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur in M.P.No.31
of 2019 in M.P.No.1 of 2019 in RCOP.No.29 of 2014.
1/13
C.R.P.No. 2018 of 2020
Brief facts of the case:-
C.R.P.No. 2018 of 2020 allowed M.P.No.1/2019 and directed the revision petitioner/tenant to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs to the respondent/landlord on or before 11.03.2019. Since the revision petitioner/tenant had failed to comply with the conditional order, M.P.No.1/2019 was dismissed on 12.03.2019. Thereafter, on 26.03.2019, the District Munsif had passed an order under Section 11(4) of the Act, directing the revision petitioner/tenant to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.1,70,800/- on or before 26.04.2019. Since the revision petitioner/tenant had failed to comply with the conditional order, the District Munsif, by an order dated 27.04.2019 had allowed RCOP.No.29 of 2014 and directed the revision petitioner/tenant to hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the respondent/landlord within a period of two months. Subsequently, on 18.06.2019, the revision petitioner/tenant had filed an application in M.P.No.31 of 2019, to condone the delay of 15 days in filing the petition to restore M.P.No.1 of 2019 in RCOP.No.29/2014. The Trial Court, finding that no sufficient cause had been shown by the petitioner to condone the delay, had dismissed the application in M.P.No.31 of 2019 vide order dated 30.08.2019. Aggrieved over the same, the present revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner/tenant.
3/13
C.R.P.No. 2018 of 2020 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would submit
that initially the revision petitioner's father and mother were the respondents in RCOP No.29/2014. The mother of the revision petitioner passed away during 2016 and the respondent/landlord without impleading the other legal heirs of the deceased tenant had only impleaded the revision petitioner which is in violation of Section 2(8) of the Act. He would also submit that the order passed by the learned District Munsif without impleading the other legal heirs is a nullity and thereby the order has to be set aside. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant would rely on the judgment of this Court reported in (2014) 1 MLJ 428 - K.Rajendran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant are extracted hereunder:-
44. It may not be out of place for this Court to make
a relevant mention that Section 208) of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 means
4/13
C.R.P.No. 2018 of 2020 "Tenant' as any person by whom or on whose
account rent is payable for a building and includes the surviving spouse, or any son, or daughter, or the legal representative of a deceased tenant who-
(i) in the case of a residential building, had been
living with the tenant in the building as a member of the
tenant's family up to the death of the tenant."
45. However, Section 2(6) of the Act 18 of 1960
defines "landlord" includes the person who is receiving or
is entitled to receive the rent of a building, whether on his
own account or on behalf of another or on behalf of
himself and Others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent if the building were let to a tenant.
5/13
C.R.P.No. 2018 of 2020 46. From the definition of Section 2(8) of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act, 1960, this Court opines that the said definition would include within its ambit not only a tenant during the 'subsistence of contractual tenancy and also a tenant "continuing in possession after the termination of tenancy". As a matter of fact, the said definition of tenant in wider prospective includes any individual by whom or of whose account rent is payable for a building and even includes the surviving spouse or any son or daughter and any person continuing in possession after the termination of tenancy in his favour.
An individual who claims to be a tenant must fulfill two requisites: (a) That he or she is the surviving spouse or any son or daughter or the legal representative of the deceased tenant; (b) The aforesaid individual ought to have been living with the tenant in the building as a member of the tenant's family till the death of tenant.
6/13
C.R.P.No. 2018 of 2020 47. Indeed, the definition in Section 2(8) of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act will only take in sons or daughters or the legal representatives of the tenant only after the demise of the tenant and not when the tenant herself as alive. Even the definition of 'tenant' under Section 2(8) of the Act, 18 of 1960 relates to matters not only pertaining to heritable relationship but also his or her association with the business carried out on by the deceased tenant in the petition mentioned premises till demise. Also that, the condition president for a legal representative of the deceased tenant to be accepted as a tenant for the purpose of the Rent Control Act is that he/she should have been living with the deceased tenant in the building as member of the tenant's family till the death of the tenant.
48. In regard to the language of Section 2(6) and Section 2(8) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent
7/13
C.R.P.No. 2018 of 2020 Control) Act, 1960 one can safely say that so far as the
legal representatives of a tenant is concerned, such of those members of the chief tenant's family who are living with him up to the date of his death would be the only proper legal representatives who ought to be brought on record for the purpose of further process to be undertaken by such legal representatives of the deceased chief tenant in proceedings by the chief tenant against the sub-tenant as per the decision Guruswamy Nadar v. Natesu Nadar, (1969) 2 MLJ 488 at 490 .
respondent/landlord would submit that admittedly the schedule premises is a residential building and the revision petitioner was the only daughter living with the tenant in the building as a member of the tenant's family up to the death of the tenant. He would submit that even in the memo filed by the petitioner/tenant before the EP Court, the petitioner/tenant has stated that her mother died in the year 2016 and that the other legal heirs of her
8/13
C.R.P.No. 2018 of 2020 deceased mother, i.e; one male legal heir, namely, Mohanasundaram had passed away in the year 2009 and another three female legal heirs namely,
(i) Mrs.Gowri, who is aged about 44 years, settled at Ratnagiri, Vellore after marriage, (ii) Mrs.Ramalakshmi, who is aged about 39 years, residing at Paranambedu village in Ponneri Taluk and (iii) Mrs.Rajalakshmi, who is aged about 38 years, residing at Chinnambedu Village in Ponneri Taluk.
9/13
C.R.P.No. 2018 of 2020 petitioner has not paid rents till date and as on date an amount of Rs.3,08,000/- is pending towards rents. The revision petitioner is a chronic defaulter of rent and the Trial Court finding that no sufficient cause had been shown by the revision petitioner/tenant to condone the delay, had dismissed the application in M.P.No.31 of 2019 in M.P.No.1 of 2019 in RCOP.No.29 of 2014. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this revision petition.
10/13
C.R.P.No. 2018 of 2020 judgment relied on by the petitioner's counsel also insists that the members of the Chief Tenant's family who are living with him upto the date of his death would be the only proper legal representatives who should be brought on record for further process. In this case as stated above admittedly other than the present petitioner no other legal heir was living with the Chief Tenant upto his death.
11/13
C.R.P.No. 2018 of 2020 had not shown any sufficient cause to condone the delay of 15 days for filing
25.09.2024
shr Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order
To:-
12/13
C.R.P.No. 2018 of 2020 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
shr
C.R.P.No. 2018 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.12592 of 2020
25.09.2024
13/13
3 issues framed by the court
Were the other legal heirs of the deceased tenant required to be impleaded in the RCOP given they did not live with her up to her death?
Should the delay of 15 days in filing the petition to restore the set-aside ex parte order be condoned?
Was the Trial Court's dismissal of the condonation application free of illegality?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.Rajendran Vs. State of Tamil NaduReferred¶10
(2014) 1 MLJ 428
Guruswamy Nadar v. Natesu NadarReferred¶10
(1969) 2 MLJ 488
4 provisions across 2 enactments
R.Valarmathi
K.Dhanraj
A.D.Jagadish Chandira
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
