R. Ramdoss Vs. N. Packirisamy Chettiar
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 81 of 1999
Petitioner: R. Ramdoss
Respondent: N. Packirisamy Chettiar
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 81 of 1999
Judges: V.N. KHARE & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 28, 2000
Head Note:
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
Section 25 – Revision – Eviction on grounds of non-payment and denial of title – Document of title proved on record not bearing the Door Number of tenant. Held that High Court was right in allowing revision. Plea that entire land was sold on which demised premises existed, left to be decided in appropriate forum. (Paras 2, 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellant claims himself to be the landlord of the premises in dispute. The allegation is that one, Ramanathan Chettiar, by a registered sale deed dated 7.3.80, transferred the premises in dispute in his favour. After the execution of the sale deed, the appellant brought a petition for eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent as well as on the ground of denial of title. The trial court decreed the suit. The appeal filed against the trial court decree was dismissed. However, the High Court, on a revision petition, filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) allowed the revision and set aside the judgment and order of the court below. Against the said judgment, the landlord is in appeal before us.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that there was sufficient material on record to show that the appellant is the landlord of the premises in dispute and the High Court has erroneously held that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. We have looked into the record and find that the sale deed on the basis of which the appellant claims title does not mention Door No. 25B1 of which the respondent is the tenant. Therefore, we find that the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant then urged that there are evidence on record to show that the entire land on which this building is standing was transferred to the appellant by Ramanathan Chettiar and in that event the appellant would be the landlord of the premises in dispute. Since the finding recorded by the High Court was that the appellant is not a landlord of the premises, as it is not mentioned in the sale deed, we leave this question open to be adjudicated in an appropriate forum.
4. With these observations we dismiss this appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. The appellant claims himself to be the landlord of the premises in dispute. The allegation is that one, Ramanathan Chettiar, by a registered sale deed dated 7.3.80, transferred the premises in dispute in his favour. After the execution of the sale deed, the appellant brought a petition for eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent as well as on the ground of denial of title. The trial court decreed the suit. The appeal filed against the trial court decree was dismissed. However, the High Court, on a revision petition, filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) allowed the revision and set aside the judgment and order of the court below. Against the said judgment, the landlord is in appeal before us.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that there was sufficient material on record to show that the appellant is the landlord of the premises in dispute and the High Court has erroneously held that there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. We have looked into the record and find that the sale deed on the basis of which the appellant claims title does not mention Door No. 25B1 of which the respondent is the tenant. Therefore, we find that the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant then urged that there are evidence on record to show that the entire land on which this building is standing was transferred to the appellant by Ramanathan Chettiar and in that event the appellant would be the landlord of the premises in dispute. Since the finding recorded by the High Court was that the appellant is not a landlord of the premises, as it is not mentioned in the sale deed, we leave this question open to be adjudicated in an appropriate forum.
4. With these observations we dismiss this appeal. There shall be no order as to costs.
