V. Prakash vs Dr. B. Kesavan and Others

R.S. Ramanathan

Tenant is the revision petitioner. The landlords/respondents filed eviction petition on the ground of wilful default and own occupation. The

learned Rent Controller dismissed the application holding that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and therefore, the

petition is not maintainable. The landlords/respondents filed appeal and the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and ordered

eviction holding that the revision petitioner, admittedly, was a tenant under the original owner Suriya Narayanan and after the death of Suriya

Narayanan, the respondents/landlords became the owners of the property as they are his legal heirs and therefore, the tenant cannot question the

title of the landlords and he has not paid the rent to the respondents herein and therefore, he is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default

and the landlords also proved that the building is required for their own occupation. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that it is admitted by the landlords in the petition filed in R.C.O.P. No. 30 of 2006 that they

were under the bona fide impression that the revision petitioner is in possession of the property as owner and only after perusing the Encumbrance

Certificate, they came to know that the revision petitioner did not buy the property and therefore, contended that there is no relationship of

landlord and tenant between the parties and even though the revision petitioner was a tenant under the original owner, he did not attorn the tenancy

in favour of the respondents who inherited the property as the legal heirs of Suriya Narayanan. He further submitted that he entered into an

agreement of sale with the original owner Suriya Narayanan for the purchase of the tenanted premises and thereafter, he continued to be in

possession in part performance of the said agreement of sale and therefore, he is no longer a tenant and there is no proof that he agreed to pay

Rs.500/= as monthly rent to the respondent and without appreciating all these aspects, the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the well

considered judgment of the Rent Controller and allowed the appeal.

I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority extracted

the evidence of the revision petitioner wherein the revision petitioner admitted that his father was the tenant under the original owner Bore Gowder

and after the death of Bore Gowder, his son Suriya Narayanan became the owner of the property and continued as a tenant in that property and

after the death of his father, he continued to be in that premises as tenant and was continuing to pay rent to Suriya Narayanan. Therefore, when the

tenant admitted that he was inducted into possession of the property as tenant, it is not open to him to say that after the death of the owner, he

ceased to be the tenant so far as the legal heirs are concerned as he has not attorned the tenancy in favour of the legal heirs. Whether the tenant

attorned the legal heirs or not, the fact that he continued to be in possession of the property as a tenant will entitle the landlords to file application

for eviction if the tenant has committed some acts within the ambit of section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

Further, it is not open to the tenant to contend that he ceased to be the tenant after entering into the oral agreement of sale with the landlord and

his possession must be construed as possession in part performance of the agreement of sale. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority

considered the scope of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and held that in respect of oral agreement of sale, section 53-A will not have

any application and a person cannot claim to be in part performance of an oral agreement of sale.

Therefore, considering all these aspects, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has rightly held that the revision petitioner, being a tenant

of the property, is liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and for own occupation and the landlord/respondents have

proved that the revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent and also proved their bona fides for own occupation. Hence, I

do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and I do not find any merit in the submission

made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.