P. Madhan Mohan vs D.A. Haja Mohideen

K. Kalyanasundaram, J.

This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 07.08.2006 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal, VIII Small Cause Courts, at Chennai in R.C.A. No. 333 of 2006 confirming the order and decretal order dated 09.03.2006 passed by Rent Controller, XV Small Cause Courts at Chennai in M.P. No. 686 of 2005 in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 2003.

The tenant in RCOP. No. 8 of 2003, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent/landlord filed the petition against the petitioner under Sections 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The landlord has averred in the eviction petition that the tenant was inducted in the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/-. The tenant was a chronic defaulter in payment of rent and he committed willful default in payment of monthly rent from March, 2001 to September, 2005.

The petition was resisted by the tenant stating that one N.H. Haja Mohideen was the owner of the petition premises and the petitioner was only acting as an agent of the said Haja Mohaideen. So, the petition is not maintainable.

The respondent filed M.P. No. 686 of 2005, in the eviction petition under Section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, seeking for a direction to the tenant to pay the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the landlord towards arrears of rent for the period from March, 2001 to September, 2005.

The said application was opposed by the tenant stating that the eviction petition itself is not maintainable as the respondent herein is not a landlord, as per Section 2(6) of the Act. It is further contended that the landlord has not obtained permission under section 10(3) of the Act. The Rent Controller allowed the application directing the tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month for the period from March, 2001 to February, 2006 on or before 23.02.2006.

Aggrieved by the order, the tenant filed an appeal in RCA. No. 333 of 2006 before the Appellate Authority. The landlord filed M.P. No. 397 of 2006 to receive additional documents. The Rent Controller allowed the petition permitting the landlord to produce additional documents which were marked as Exs. P1 and P2. Ex. P1 is the power of attorney executed by N.H. Haja Mohaideen in favour of the landlord dated 14.08.1996. Ex. P2 is the power of attorney executed by legal heirs of original owner namely, N.H. Haja Mohaideen, in favour of the above said landlord, dated 23.09.2002, after his demise. Exs. P1 and P2 would reveal that the owners of the petition premises has authorised the landlord/respondent herein, to initiate eviction proceeding against the tenant. The appellate authority directed the tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,44,500/- on or before 24.08.2006. Aggrieved by the order, the present revision has been filed.

Mr. L. Mouli, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had initiated the eviction proceeding stating that the landlord of the petition premises, one N.H. Haja Mohaideen was the owner of the property and the respondent herein is only acting as an agent. Admittedly, the respondent herein has not obtained written consent of the original owner, as per Section 10(8) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and there is no averments in the eviction petition stating that he was only acting as an agent of the owner of the petition premises. Hence, the eviction petition is not maintainable and the authority was not justified in directing the tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,27,500/- as per section 11(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

Per contra Mr. P. Sivamani, learned counsel for the respondent made submissions in support of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. It is further submitted that the tenant has not paid the rent from March, 2001 and as per the order of this Court, he has paid only Rs. 1,50,000/- and as on date, the tenant is liable to pay arrears of rent at Rs. 4,00,000/-.

The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the Judgment reported in 2013(8) MLJ 155 in (Rizwanur Rahman vs. VMS. Seyedha and Others) wherein paragraph-6 is extracted here under:

Section 2(6) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act defines the term "landlord". As per Section 2(6) of the said Act, a 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 who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent if the building were let to a tenant. Therefore, even as per the definition provided to the landlord, the said Mahatma is entitled to receive rent for and on behalf of the landlord, being KRG Paul Family and on his death, his legal heirs can definitely be entitled to prosecute the Rent Control Original petition filed by their father. Therefore, I am of the view that the Courts below are justified in permitted the legal heirs of Mahatma to prosecute the Rent control Original Petition and I do not find any reasons to interfere with the same.

Exs.P1 and P. 2 would reveal that after demise of the original owner of Mr. N.H. Haja Mohaideen, his legal heirs have executed power of attorney in favour of landlord, dated 14.08.1996 and 23.09.2002 respectively permitting the landlord to initiate eviction proceeding against the tenant. It is also admitted by the tenant in his counter that the landlord was only acting as an agent of the original owner and he was collecting rent from the tenant. Mere non mentioning of the written consent of the legal heirs of N.H. Haja Mohaideen in the eviction petition cannot be a ground to reject the petition filed by the respondent. The Appellate Authority referring to Sections 2(b) and 10(8) of the Act held that the eviction petition is maintainable. Even though, the tenant was given an ample opportunity, he has not paid the rent. It is represented by the learned counsel for the respondent that the tenant is in arrears of rent for more than Rs. 4,00,000/-.

In view of the facts, stated supra, I do not find any merits in the revision petition. This Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

I am of the view that the tenant has committed willful default and he is liable to vacate from the petition premises. Considering the facts of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Rent Controller is directed to pass final orders in RCOP. No. 8 of 2003 on the file of XV Small Cause Courts, Chennai, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.