C.Sekar & Anr. vs T.Narayanan & Ors.

In all the four Civil Revision Petitions, the petitioners are tenants and the respondents are landlords. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as ''landlords'' and ''tenants''. The issues in all the four Civil Revision Petitions are inter linked and therefore, they are disposed of by this

common order.

C.R.P.(NPD)No.2646 of 2015:

The tenant/C.Sekar filed R.C.O.P.No.2986 of 1997 under Section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act, on the file of the XI Small Causes Court,

Chennai, for permission to deposit the monthly rent of Rs.225/- from the month of May 1992 in respect of the petition premises before the

authority. The learned Rent Controller by fair and decretal order dated 27.02.2014, dismissed the said R.C.O.P. Against the same, the

tenant/C.Sekar filed R.C.A.No.285 of 2014 on the file of the IX Small Causes Court, Chennai. The learned Appellate Authority by judgment and

decree dated 22.01.2015 dismissed the appeal confirming the fair and decretal order of the learned Rent Controller. Against the same,

C.R.P.No.2646 of 2015 is filed by the tenant/C.Sekar.

C.R.P.(NPD)No.2748 of 2015:

The tenant/Kavitha Medical Centre filed R.C.O.P.No.1377 of 1997 under Section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act, on the file of the XI Small

Causes Court, Chennai, for permission to deposit the monthly rent of Rs.300/- from the month of May 1992 in respect of the petition premises

before the authority. The learned Rent Controller by fair and decretal order dated 27.02.2014, dismissed the said R.C.O.P. Against the same, the

tenant/Kavitha Medical Centre filed R.C.A.No.284 of 2014 on the file of the IX Small Causes Court, Chennai. The learned Appellate Authority

by judgment and decree dated 22.01.2015 dismissed the appeal confirming the fair and decretal order of the learned Rent Controller. Against the

same, C.R.P.No.2748 of 2015 is filed by the tenant/Kavitha Medical Centre.

C.R.P.(NPD)No.2736 of 2015:

The landlords filed R.C.O.P.No.187 of 1997 against the tenant/C.Sekar, respondents 1 and 2 in C.R.P.Nos.2646 and 2748 of 2015, for eviction

of the tenant/C.Sekar on the ground of wilful default, on the file of XI Small Causes Court, Chennai. The learned Rent Controller by fair and

decretal order dated 27.02.2014 allowed the said R.C.O.P. and ordered eviction. Against the same, the tenant/C.Sekar filed R.C.A.No.299 of

2014 on the file of IX Small Causes Court, Chennai. The learned Appellate Authority by judgment and decree dated 22.01.2015 dismissed the

appeal confirming the fair and decretal order of the learned Rent Controller. Against the same, C.R.P.No.2736 of 2015 is filed by the

tenant/C.Sekar.

C.R.P.(NPD)No.4387 of 2015:

The landlords filed R.C.O.P.No.189 of 1997 against the tenant/Kavitha Medical Centre, for eviction on the ground of wilful default, on the file of

XI Small Causes Court, Chennai. The learned Rent Controller by fair and decretal order dated 27.02.2014 allowed the said R.C.O.P. and

ordered eviction. Against the same, the tenant/Kavitha Medical Centre filed R.C.A.No.286 of 2014 on the file of IX Small Causes Court,

Chennai. The learned Appellate Authority by judgment and decree dated 22.01.2015 dismissed the appeal confirming the fair and decretal order

of the learned Rent Controller. Against the same, C.R.P.No.4387 of 2015 is filed by the tenant/Kavitha Medical Centre.

The facts of the case are as follows:

The landlords filed two R.C.O.P.Nos.187 and 189 of 1997 for eviction of the tenants on the ground of wilful default stating that the tenants paid

rent till April 1992 and thereafter, failed to pay rent and committed wilful default. Pending R.C.O.Ps., the landlord by name T.Narayanan died and

his legal heirs were brought on record as per the order dated 02.11.2007 in M.P.Nos.441 and 442 of 2007 in R.C.O.P.Nos.187 and 189 of

1997. The legal heirs stated that they are the owners and landlords of the premises at Door No.25/15, Jones road, Saidapet, Chennai-15.

C.Sekar and Kavitha Medical Centre are the tenants under the landlords in respect of the shop Nos.3 and 15 respectively for non residential

purpose situated in the front portion of the premises. The tenants paid rent till April 1992 and subsequently, they did not pay the rent. The

landlords filed R.C.O.P.Nos.1402 and 1403 of 1992 against the tenants herein, on the file of the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai, for eviction on

the ground of wilful default. The said R.C.O.Ps. were dismissed on 23.11.1993 and subsequent to that, the tenants stopped paying rent to the

landlords at the ill advice of others from April 1992 till date and the tenants committed default in payment of rent. In the circumstances, the

landlords have filed present R.C.O.P.Nos.187 and 189 of 1997 for eviction of the tenants on the ground of wilful default.

The tenants filed counter statements and submitted that there is a dispute with regard to ownership of the property. The brother of the

landlord/deceased Narayanan, by name Ramachandran, claimed 1/6th share in the rental income and an advocate by name S.K.Sundaram issued

notice stating that if the tenants pay the rent to the landlords, it will not bind on the Arulmigu Prasanna Venkatesaperumal Devasthanam/temple.

O.S.No.8304 of 1992 filed by Ramachandran/brother of landlord Narayanan, with regard to petition premises is pending. In view of the bonafide

doubt about the ownership, the tenants are not paying the rent from May 1992. The landlords earlier filed R.C.O.P.Nos.1401 to 1403 and 1437

of 1992 for eviction of the tenants herein and other tenants namely, Krishnan and Babu, on the very same ground. The said R.C.O.Ps. were

dismissed. Challenging the same, the landlords filed R.C.As. and Civil Revision Petitions and the same were also dismissed. In view of the

dismissal of earlier R.C.O.Ps. filed by the landlords, the present R.C.O.Ps. are not maintainable. The petition premises belongs to the temple and

one Radhakrishna Chetty, who was the trustee of the temple took the land on lease and put up superstructure and let out the same for rents to

various third parties. The said Radhakrishna Chetty gave the rental income to the temple. He executed a Will dated 20.09.1986 bequeathing the

property to his wife Chittibai Ammal for her lifetime and thereafter, to the temple.

The tenants/C.Sekar and Kavitha Medical Centre filed R.C.O.P.Nos.2986 and 1377 of 1997 respectively, under Section 9(3) of the Rent

Control Act, on the file of the XI Small Causes Court, Chennai, for permission to deposit the monthly rent of Rs.225/- and Rs.300/- respectively,

from the month of May 1992 in respect of the petition premises before the authority. The landlord/Narayanan died and his legal heirs were brought

on record vide order dated 10.08.2012 in M.P.Nos.291 and 289 of 2012. The said R.C.O.Ps. were filed on the same grounds raised in the

counter statement filed in R.C.O.P.Nos.187 and 189 of 1997 filed by the landlords. In addition to that, the tenants have stated that after the death

of Radhakrishna Chetty, the landlord/Narayanan was collecting the rent on behalf of Chittibai Ammal. The said Chittibai Ammal was of unsound

mind and taking advantage of unsound mind of Chittibai Ammal, the landlord Narayanan obtained documents from her as though the property was

sold to him on 25.05.1997. After knowing the above facts, the relatives of Chittibai Ammal made arrangements to cancel the alleged sale deed on

the next day itself.

The landlord/Narayanan filed counter statement and denied various allegations made by the tenants for deposit of rent and submitted that there

is no bonafide dispute with regard to the title of the petition premises. He further submitted that Chittibai Ammal died in the year 1993 itself and

therefore, it is false to state that Chittibai Ammal executed a sale deed on 25.05.1997 in favour of the landlord/Narayanan. He was collecting rent

as a owner of the property not as the agent of Chittibai Ammal.

The temple/Arulmigu Prasanna Venkatesaperumal Devasthanam and T.Ramachandran, who is the brother of the landlord/Narayanan were

impleaded as respondents 2 and 3 in the R.C.O.Ps filed by the tenants. The temple filed counter statement stating that the temple is not the owner

of the superstructure. The superstructure belongs to the landlord/Narayanan. The landlord and his legal heirs are having lease hold right over the

land in respect of the petition premises. The brother of the landlord by name Ramachandran has no lease hold right over the petition premises. The

temple is not a necessary party. The landlord and tenants unnecessarily dragged the temple into the proceedings.

The brother of the landlord Ramachandran filed counter statement and submitted that the landlord/Narayanan is not absolute owner of the

petition premises and he is having 1/6th share in the rental income.

All the above four R.C.O.Ps. along with other R.C.O.Ps. filed by the landlords against other tenants and R.C.O.Ps. filed by the other tenants

were also taken together and a joint trial was held.

Pending R.C.O.Ps., landlord Narayanan died and his legal heirs were brought on record as respondents 3 to 7 in R.C.O.P.Nos.2986 and 1377

of 1997 filed by the tenants and petitioners 2 to 6 in R.C.O.P.Nos.187 and 189 of 1997 filed by the landlords.

Before the learned Rent Controller, Prema, who is the first respondent in C.R.P.Nos.2736 and 4387 of 2015 and third respondent in

C.R.P.Nos.2646 and 2748 of 2015 was examined as P.W.1 and marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to P20. The tenant/C.Sekar was examined as

R.W.1, one Kesavaraman was examined as R.W.2 and Ramachandran, brother of the landlord/Narayanan was examined as R.W.3 and marked

21 documents as Exs.R1 to R21.

The learned Rent Controller considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence allowed R.C.O.P.Nos.187 and 189 of 1997 filed by

the landlords and dismissed R.C.O.P.Nos.2986 and 1377 of 1997 filed by the tenants.

Against the said order of dismissal dated 27.02.2014 made in R.C.O.P.Nos.2986 and 1377 of 1997, the tenants/C.Sekar and Kavitha

Medical Centre filed R.C.A.Nos.285 and 284 of 2014 respectively. Against the order dated 27.02.2014 made in R.C.O.P.Nos.187 and 189 of

2014, the tenants/C.Sekar and Kavitha Medical Centre filed R.C.A.Nos.299 and 286 of 2014 respectively.

The learned Appellate Authority independently considering the materials on record and order of the learned Rent Controller, dismissed all the

four R.C.A.Nos.299, 285, 286 and 284 of 2014 filed by the tenants.

Against the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2015 made in R.C.A.Nos.299 and 285 of 2014 confirming the fair and decretal order dated

27.02.2014 made in R.C.O.P.Nos.187 and 2986 of 1997, the tenant/C.Sekar filed two C.R.P.Nos.2736 and 2646 of 2015.

Against the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2015 made in R.C.A.Nos.286 and 284 of 2014 confirming the fair and decretal order dated

27.02.2014 made in R.C.O.P.Nos.189 and 1377 of 1997, the tenant/Kavitha Medical Centre filed two C.R.P.Nos.4387 and 2748 of 2015.

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the tenants contended that the R.C.O.Ps. filed by the landlords for eviction are not maintainable in

view of the dismissal of earlier R.C.O.P.Nos.1401 to 1403 and 1437 of 1992 filed by the landlords on the very same ground. The landlords have

taken a different stand for the present R.C.O.Ps. than that of the stand taken in the earlier R.C.O.Ps. In the earlier R.C.O.Ps. filed by the

landlords, they stated that originally the property belonged to Radhakrishna Chetty and subsequently, by the Will dated 20.09.1986, the said

Radhakrishna Chetty bequeathed the said property to Chittibai Ammal and landlord/Narayanan got vested interest in the property. In the present

R.C.O.Ps. filed by the landlords, they are claiming title based on Ex.P3/settlement deed, dated 28.01.1988. The landlords have not mentioned

about Ex.P3 in the earlier R.C.O.Ps. filed by them. The landlords have taken steps to evict the tenants at any costs and have also filed separate

R.C.O.Ps. for eviction on the ground of owners occupation. The learned Rent Controller having dismissed R.C.O.Ps. filed by the landlords for

eviction on the ground of owners occupation, ought to have dismissed the present R.C.O.Ps. filed by the landlords on the ground of wilful default

also. The Courts below failed to see that earlier R.C.O.Ps. filed by the landlords on the ground of wilful default were dismissed holding that there

exist bonafide dispute with regard to the ownership. O.S.No.8304 of 1992 filed by Ramachandran/brother of landlord Narayanan with regard to

the petition premises is even now pending. In view of the rival claim with regard to right to receive rent, the Courts below erred in holding that the

tenants have committed wilful default. The tenants to show their bonafide that they are willing to pay rent, have filed R.C.O.P.Nos.2986 and 1377

of 1997 respectively, under Section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act, for permission to deposit the rent. The authority with whom the rent has to be

deposited are notified by the Government only on 25.01.2001 by G.O.Ms.No.43, Housing and Urban Development (Audit Department). No

cause of action has arisen for the landlords to initiate the present R.C.O.Ps. in view of the dismissal of earlier R.C.O.Ps. filed by them. The

landlords are not owners of the petition property and the property belongs to the temple. The learned Senior Counsel for the tenants in support of

his contention relied on the following judgments:

(i) 1998 (2) LW 524 (Kannan and another v. Tamil Talir Kalvi Kazhagam);

In the background of this case, the way the suit culminated without adjudication of the rights between the parties, on dismissal of the suit for

default and period for setting aside still subsisting even on the date when the said notice was sent, in such circumstances it cannot be said that there

could not be any doubt in the mind of the tenants or earlier doubt stands removed. If submission for the respondent is accepted, the very object of

the Act and protecting interest of tenant under subsection (3) of Section 9 would be defeated. It would be against the very spirit and the objective

of the Act which is to prevent the unreasonable eviction of tenants. It is not a case that he has not tendered the rent. He is a tenant in the demised

premises since the year 1969. He has never defaulted and is paying the rent regularly. He has continued to pay the rent even after dispute arose

after waiting for some time and after making an application under Section 9(3) before the Rent Controller.

When two or more interpretations are possible, the one which subserves to the object should be accepted. We find sub-section (3) of Section

9 contemplates deposit of rent in case of bona fide doubt or dispute. This is to salvage tenant from eviction. However, this would depend on the

facts of each case. Thus, where there are two possible interpretations, the one which prevents a tenant from unreasonable eviction be accepted.

(ii) 1998 (II) CTC 498 (M.Singaperumal and three others v. Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Home Department,

Madras-9 and five others);

In the absence of any Authority prescribed by the first respondent with regard to deposit of rents as per section 9(3) of the Act and in the light

of the earlier decision of this Court referred to above. I am constrained to accept the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. There shall be a direction to the first respondent to prescribe the Authority to whom the deposit

of rents has to be made under section 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, expeditiously. Inasmuch as absence of such

Authority is a lacuna, this Court hopes that the Government will come forward with necessary notification as early as possible.

(iii) (2006) 2 M.L.J. 554 (Duraisamy and others V. R.Sureshlal and another);

In such an event, only remedy available for the tenants is in depositing the rent either under Sec.8(5) or under Sec.9(3) of the Rent Control

Act. Sec.8(5) can be invoked if the landlord has refused to receive the rent. That is not the contingency here. The other provision is Sec.9(3). That

may be implemented by the tenants only if there is available authority as contemplated therein. But the authority mentioned in the above proviso

came into existence in much later date in January 2001, which was not in existence at the time these rent control original petitions were filed. By

virtue of G.O.Ms.No.43, Housing and Urban Development (Audit) Department dated 25.01.2001, the authority was clothed with power. Till such

time, the tenants had no remedy under Secs. 8(5) and 9(3) of the Rent Control Act for the reasons mentioned supra. It is in this manner, the default

becomes not wilful. Hence, on this ground, eviction cannot be ordered and the findings given by the Rent Control Appellate Authority are liable to

be interfered with.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlords submitted that the earlier R.C.O.Ps. filed by the landlords and subsequent proceedings

initiated by them, were dismissed on technical grounds. The present R.C.O.Ps. filed by the landlords are for wilful default committed by the tenants

for the subsequent period. There is no bonafide dispute with regard to the ownership of petition premises. The land belongs to the temple and

superstructure belongs to Chittibai Ammal. The said Chittibai Ammal by the settlement deed dated 28.01.1988 marked as Ex.P3 settled the

property in favour of the landlord/Narayanan. The said settlement deed is not challenged by anybody and the same is in force. The tenants claimed

that the superstructure also belongs to the temple. On the other hand, the temple has filed counter statement and categorically stated that the

landlords are lessees of the land and owners of the superstructure. The temple has stated that they are not owners of superstructure. The landlords

have paid land rent and other statutory dues to the authorities. All the receipts are in the name of the landlord/Narayanan and subsequent to his

death, all the receipts are in the name of other legal heirs. The said O.S.No.8304 of 1992 had been filed by one Doraikannu Chettiar against

Chittibai Ammal, Narayanan, Ramachandran and others not with regard to petition premises. The landlord/Narayanan was fifth defendant in the

said suit. The property mentioned in the suit in respect of the landlord/Narayanan is not petition premises. It relates to house and ground in

premises bearing Old No.19/2, New No.15, West Jones Road, Saidapet, Chennai-15. Whereas the petition premises are shops situate in the

same door number. The said suit was dismissed for default on 16.10.1998. The plaintiff therein did not take any further proceedings for restoration

of the suit and dismissal of suit has become final. In spite of dismissal on 16.10.1998, the tenants are claiming that the said suit is still pending. The

tenants have not taken any steps to verify the nature of the relief sought for and the property which is the subject matter of the said suit. The tenants

have not produced alleged notice issued by Ramachandran, brother of landlord/Narayanan, claiming share in the property. Notice issued by

advocate Mr.S.K.Sundaram was not addressed to the tenants. The present R.C.O.Ps. filed by the landlords for claiming rent from May 1992

onwards. The tenants themselves admitted that they have paid rents to the landlord/Narayanan till April 1992 and hence, under Section 2(6) of the

Rent Control Act, the said Narayanan is the landlord of the petition premises.

The Will dated 20.09.1986 executed by Radhakrishna Chetty does not relate to the petition premises and it relates to four houses. The said

Will is not probated and the same cannot be relied on. The tenants did not file R.C.O.P. under Section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act, immediately,

when they entertained a doubt about the dispute of ownership. After five years only after the landlord filed R.C.O.Ps. for eviction, the tenants have

filed petitions under Section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the tenants that the authority under

Section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act was notified only on 25.01.2001 by G.O.Ms.No.43, Housing and Urban Development (Audit Department)

and therefore, there is no delay in filing R.C.O.Ps. under Section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act and there is no wilful default, is untenable.

The tenants intentionally and deliberately failed to pay the rent and it amounts to supine indifference in payment of rent and it amounts to wilful

default. The tenant/C.Sekar has sublet the petition premises rented out to him to the third parties. Both the tenants were earlier paying rent to the

landlords for more than 9 1/2 years and suddenly, without any reason, deliberately failed to pay the rent, which amounts to wilful default. The

landlord has produced documents to show that the tenants paid rent to the landlord earlier and marked the same as Exs.P1 and P4. Earlier

R.C.O.P.Nos.1401 to 1403 and 1437 of 1992 filed by the landlord for wilful default were for the period of default from February 1992 to April

1992. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the landlords relied on the following judgments:

(i) 2013 (1) MWN (Civil) 245 (Sulochana v. R.Pangajam and others);

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that under the provisions of Section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act, in case of

doubt and dispute regarding ownership of the property, the Tenant can deposit the rent before the authority as prescribed under the Act and

admittedly, no authority has been prescribed before whom the rent has to be deposited and therefore, the Tenant has no other option to file the

Application before the Rent Controller seeking permission of the Rent Controller to deposit the rent and that was not properly appreciated.

I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner. It is the specific case of the Revision Petitioner that she

was paying rent originally to Rukmani Ammal and thereafter to Devaraj and lastly to Ravi. It is also her case that till August 1997, Ravi was

collecting rent and thereafter, he has not come to collect the rent. It is also admitted by her that a case was pending between the owners for

partition and she is aware of the same. She also admitted receipt of notice issued by the Respondent calling upon her to pay the arrears of rent.

Though in the notice, the Respondents have not stated as to how they derived title over the suit property, even after receipt of notice, no attempt

was made by the Revision Petitioner to enquire about the true owner and without making such attempt she filed application to deposit the rent after

the Respondents filed application for eviction. Further, the conduct of the Revision Petitioner in resorting to file application under Section 9(3)

cannot be said to be bona fide and the Petition is also not maintainable under Section 9(3) of the Act.

.. ..

.. ..

If really, the Revision Petitioner had entertained a bona fide doubt regarding the title of the Respondents to the property, she would have

definitely called upon the Respondents to explain their source of title or would have asked Mr.Ravi about the claim made by the Respondents.

Admittedly, she has not done anything and she has also admitted that she was aware of the Partition Suit pending between the parties and also the

Suit filed by the Respondents restraining Ravi and others from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the property.

(ii) 1987 (100) LW 809 (K.V.Nayak v. S.Ganapathy Rao);

..... It is patent from the allegations contained in the said eviction petitions that they were filed on the basis of wilful default committed by the

petitioner during various periods. It is relevant to point out in this connection that the question of wilful default for a particular period will depend

upon various circumstances. Such circumstances cannot be the same for all time to come. Taking note of the various circumstances which resulted

in the filing of the earlier eviction petitions on the ground of wilful default, the authorities below comes to the conclusion that there was no default

during the period. Therefore, it cannot be stated now that because of the said decision in the earlier petitions, the landlord cannot seek to evict the

tenant, on the ground of wilful default thereafter. If such a contention is to be accepted, it would only mean that the landlord can never file a petition

on the ground of wilful default in future. .. .. ..

.......As I have already stated earlier, the cause of action on the basis of wilful default is different for each petition and it cannot be said that the

cause of action is one and the same for all these petitions. In view of this position the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has

got to be rejected.

Points for consideration:

(1) Whether the tenants committed wilful default or there is bona fide dispute with regard to the ownership of petition property?

(2) Whether filing of R.C.O.Ps. under Section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act by tenants would show that the intention of tenants is not to commit

any default?

Point No.1

The landlord/Narayanan claims right to collect rent from the tenants on the ground that he is the owner of the superstructure. It is an admitted fact

that the land belongs to the temple. According to the landlord, after taking land on lease, Chittibai Ammal put up superstructure and let out the

petition premises and other properties on rent to various third parties. Subsequently, as per Ex.P3 settlement deed dated 28.01.1988, the property

was settled on the landlord/Narayanan by Chittibai Ammal. Per contra, the tenants have claimed that one Radhakrishna Chetty, husband of

Chittibai Ammal took the land on lease from temple and put up superstructure and let out the same to the third parties. He also executed a Will

dated 20.09.1986 bequeathing the property to his wife Chittibai Ammal for her life and thereafter to the temple. According to the tenants, one

Advocate by name S.K.Sundaram issued notice dated 12.02.1992 marked as Ex.R13 to the tenants informing them that any rent paid to the

landlord/Narayanan will not be binding on the temple. According to the tenants, the said advocate met them in person and asked them not to pay

the rent to the landlord/Narayanan.

Ex.R13 notice dated 12.02.1992 is not addressed to the tenants. The tenants have not produced any evidence to show that the said advocate

met them in person and asked them not to pay any rent to the landlord. The tenants have not produced any evidence to substantiate their claim.

Further, the Will dated 20.09.1986 cannot be applied to the facts of the present case on two grounds. Firstly, it relates to four houses belonging to

Radhakrishna Chetty situate in different street and not relating to the petition premises situated in Jones Road, Saidapet. Secondly, the Will was not

probated and therefore, it cannot be relied on. In addition to that, the temple which was impleaded as second respondent in R.C.O.Ps. filed by the

tenants, filed counter statement categorically stating that landlord/Narayanan was lessee of the land belonging to the temple and that temple is not

owner of the superstructure. Only the landlord/Narayanan is owner of the superstructure and after his death, his legal heirs have become lessees of

the land and owner of the superstructure. In view of the above categorical statement coupled with the fact that the tenants have not taken any steps

to verify the nature of the relief sought for in O.S.No.8304 of 1992 and the properties involved in the suit, it cannot be held that there is bonafide

and genuine dispute with regard to ownership of the petition premises.

According to the tenants, Ramachandran/brother of the landlord/Narayanan claimed 1/6th share in the rent payable by the tenants. The tenants

have not produced the alleged notice sent by the said Ramachandran. In cross-examination of said Ramachandran/R.W.3, he has not stated that as

to how he is entitled to 1/6th share in the rental income. He has only stated that Chittibai Ammal promised to settle the petition premises to him and

due to her mental illness, she did not settle the property on him. He has not produced any evidence to substantiate his claim. Chittibai Ammal did

not settle the petition premises on Ramachandran, but settled the petition premises on landlord Narayanan by settlement deed Ex.P3. The tenants

contended that by Ex.P3, the petition premises were not settled on Narayanan and property behind the petition premises only was settled on

Narayanan. The learned Rent Controller considering Ex.P3/settlement deed rejected this claim of R.W.3 as there is no length and breadth in the

settlement deed. This finding of the learned Rent Controller was confirmed by the learned Appellate Authority.

It is pertinent to note that the tenants even after notice dated 12.02.1992 issued by Advocate S.K.Sundaram, paid rent in the month of

February and March 1992 to the landlord/Narayanan and they stopped paying rent from April 1992. Earlier R.C.O.P.Nos.1401 to 1403 and

1437 of 1992 filed by the landlords relates to wilful default in payment of rent for the month of April and May 1992. The present

R.C.O.P.Nos.187 and 189 of 1997 filed by the landlords is for subsequent period. The cause of action for the present R.C.O.Ps. is different from

cause of action that arose from earlier R.C.O.Ps. The decision reported in 1987 (100) LW 809 (K.V.Nayak v. S.Ganapathy Rao) is squarely

applicable to the facts of the present case. The Courts below have considered this aspect and held that the present R.C.O.P.Nos.187 and 189 of

1997 filed by the landlords for eviction are maintainable. For the above reason, point No.1 is answered against the tenants confirming the findings

of the Courts below that the tenants have committed wilful default and there is no bonafide dispute with regard to the ownership of the petition

premises.

Point No.2:

From the materials on record, it is seen that the tenants were paying rent till March 1992. According to the tenants, Ramachandran claimed 1/6th

share in the rent and one S.K.Sundaram, advocate claimed that any rent paid to the landlord/Narayanan will not be binding on the temple. Further,

according to the tenants, suit O.S.No.8304 of 1992 was pending with regard to suit property. Therefore, they did not pay the rent to the landlord

as there is dispute with regard to the ownership. According to the tenants, they came to know about the dispute in February 1992. But they did

not ascertain who is the real owner of the petition premises, the nature of the suit or the properties, which are subject matter of the suit. They also

have not taken any steps to ascertain the stage of the suit.

At the time of argument in the Civil Revision Petitions also, the learned Senior Counsel for the tenants contended that the suit is still pending,

whereas the learned counsel for the landlords has produced the extract of the suit register in O.S.No.8304 of 1992 on the file of the City Civil

Court, Chennai. From the said Extract, it is seen that the said suit was dismissed as early as on 16.10.1998 for default. The contention of the

tenants is that Ramachandran/second respondent in C.R.P.Nos.2646 and 2748 of 2015 filed suit claiming title to the suit property. On the other

hand, from the additional typed set of papers filed by the legal heirs of the landlord, it is seen that the said suit was filed by one Doraikannu Chettiar

and Ramachandran/brother of the landlord/Narayanan is only eighth defendant in the said suit. Item Nos. 4 and 5 in the schedule to the plaint to the

said suit relates to house and ground in old No.19/2, New No.15, West Jones Road, Saidapet, Chennai-15, Block No.7, T.S.No.13 and the land

belonging to the temple is in the Rangabashyam Chetty street and Door No.54, Kavarai street, Saidapet, Madras-15. The petition premises, which

are shops, are not subject matter of the said suit. However, the tenants have not filed petitions under Section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act

immediately when they came to know that the bonafide dispute with regard to ownership of the property. Admittedly, they have filed said petitions

only in the year 1997 after five years of non payment of rent and after landlord filed R.C.O.Ps. for eviction.

The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the tenants that authority under Section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act was notified only in the

year 2001 by G.O.Ms.No.43, Housing and Urban Development (Audit Department) and therefore, they could not file application under Section

9(3) of the Rent Control Act and could not deposit the rent earlier, is without merits. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the tenants,

authority under Section 9(3) of the Act was notified only in the year 2001, whereas the tenants have filed R.C.O.P.Nos.2986 and 1377 of 1997

under Section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act only in the year 1997. They have not explained as to why they did not file the said R.C.O.Ps. in the

year 1992 itself or the reason for filing R.C.O.Ps. in the year 1997, even though as on the date also, authority under Section 9(3) of the Rent

Control Act was not notified.

In view of the above facts, it is clear that the tenants have committed wilful default. The finding of the learned Rent Controller that after five

years of entertaining bonafide dispute about the ownership and failure to ascertain real owner, it is clear that the intention of the tenants is not to

pay the rent only, is valid and based on proper appreciation of facts. The decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the tenants do not

advance the case of the tenants. The decision reported in 2013 (1) MWN (Civil) 245 (Sulochana v. R.Pangajam and others) relied on by the

learned counsel for the landlords is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. For the above reason, point No.2 is answered against the

tenants.

The Courts below have considered all the materials on record in proper perspective and by elaborate order and judgment have ordered

eviction of the tenants and dismissed R.C.O.P.Nos.2986 and 1377 of 1997 filed by the tenants for permission to deposit the rent before the

authority by giving cogent and valid reason. There is no perversity or failure to appreciate the facts in proper perspective warranting interference by

this Court.

In the result, the four Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.