AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Fakkir Mohammed, J.—The second Respondent in House Rent Case No. 1386 of 1979 is the revision Petitioner in Civil Revision Petition
No. 3846 of 1981 and the fourth Respondent in House Rent Case No. 1386 of 1979 is the revision Petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 3750
of 1981. The first Respondent in Civil Revision Petition No. 3846 of 1981, viz., the tenant filed House Rent Case No. 1386 of 1979 u/s 9(3) of
the Tamil Nadu Act and VIII of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking the permission of the Rent Controller to deposit the monthly
rents for 1 following reasons.
The tenant entered into the tenancy agreement regarding the dismissed building with deceased Nagappa in the year 1959 on a monthly rent of
Rs. 80. After the death of the landlord Nagappa, his wife viz., the second Respondent in Civil Revision Petition No. 3846 of 1981, who is the first
Respondent in House Rent Case No. 1386 of 1979, was receiving the rent. On 31st January, 1978 Thiru R. Punyakoti Chetty, advocate, sent a
letter demanding the rents from February, 1978 onwards stating that he had been appointed as Receiver by order, dated 7th January, 1975 in
Application No. 2263 of 1974 in Civil Suit No. 46 of 1974. Soon afterwards the same advocate informed the first Respondent herein that he wad
discharged from the Receivership. Therefore, the first Respondent herein continued to pay the rents to the second Respondent herein, A few
months later, the second Respondent herein informed the tenant that because she could not collect the rents due to her old age the tenant might pay
the rents to her son, viz., revision Petitioner herein. Accordingly the tenant was paying the rent to the revision Petitioner a herein.
The tenant has paid Rs. 5,410/- towards advance rent and Rs. 440 towards electricity deposit in the name of the second Respondent herein.
On 1st September, 1978, the revision Petitioner and his wife sent a notice to the tenant stating that they had sold away the demised building in
favour of the minor children of the fourth Respondent herein and that therefore, the tenant should pay rents to the fourth Respondent herein from
1st September 1978 onwards. Similar notice was received from the fourth Respondent herein also on 9th September, 1978. No sale deed had
been executed either by the wife of Nagappa second Respondent herein, or by Nagappa''s other legal representative in favour of the revision
Petitioner, and his wife.
The third Respondent herein sent a notice dated, 7th November ,1978 to the tenant stating that the deceased landlord Nagappa has left his last
Will, dated 14th September, 1941 bequeathing a life legacy in favour of the second Respondent herein and absolute vested remainder in favour of
his five sons in equal shales, that the Will was probated in Original Petition No. 14 of 1976 on the file of the High Court that the revision Petitioner
and his wife bad no right to sell the demised building in favour of the fourth Respondent''s children and that the tenant should not attorn to the fourth
Respondent. Thus, a bona-fide doubt as to whom the tenant should pay the rent for the demised premises has arisen, necessitating the filing of the
petition u/s 9(3) of the Act.
The said petition was thus contested by all the four Respondents herein. The rent controller came to the conclusion that the tenant has got a
genuine doubt as to whom the tenant has to pay the rent as there is a dispute of ownership of the demised building and that, therefore, the tenant is
entitled to deposit the lent into Court till the parties establish their respective rights over the demised building.
The second Respondent herein pleaded that she was collecting the rents from the tenant for the past several years, that the revision Petitioner
was receiving rents from the tenants only as her agent and that the second Respondent or the fourth Respondent has no right to receive the rents.
The revision Petitioner contended that he was collecting the rents from the tenant as absolute owner and not as the agent of the second
Respondent, who is his mother, and he has issued receipts which would show that he is the owner, that because the revision Petitioner has sold
away the demised building in favour of the minor children of the fourth Respondent there is absolutely no difficulty in the tenant paying the rents to
the minor children of the fourth Respondent, and that only with a view to avoid eviction proceedings being instituted against him by the fourth
Respondent, the tenant has come forward with the petition u/s 9(3) of the Act which is not a bona fide one. The revision Petitioner in Civil Revision
Petition No. 3750 of 1981 had filed a counter in support of the revision Petitioner.
The third Respondent pleaded that in Civil Suit No. 215 of 1975, on the file of the High Court, Madras, it was held that all the five sons of late
Nagappa are entitled to 1/5th share each in the property and that the tenant should deposit the rents into Court.
The learned Rent Controller upheld the contention of the tenant, allowed the petition and directed the tenant to deposit the rents into Court. The
revision Petitioner herein filed House Rent Appeal No. 454 of 1980 and the revision Petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 3750 of 1981 filed
House Rent Appeal No. 430 of 1980. By a common order, the appellate authority has dismissed both the appeals confirming the order of the
learned Rent Controller. The aggrieved Appellant in House Rent Appeal No. 454 of 1980 filed Civil Revision Petition No. 3846 of 1981 and the
aggrieved Appellant in House Rent Appeal No. 430 of 1980 filed Civil Revision Petition No. 3750 of 1981.
The question that arises for consideration is whether there is bona fide doubt as to the person who is entitled to receive the rent from the tenant
necessitating the filing of petition u/s 9(3) of the Act? The fact that deceased Nagappa left his original Will, exhibit P-22, bequeathing a life interest
in the demised building in favour of the second Respondent herein with a further life interest in favour of his five sons, and vested remainder in
favour of the grand-children, and that the second Respondent herein was collecting the rents from the first Respondent/tenant herein till Original
Petition No. 18 of 1975 was filed by the revision Petitioner, is not disputed. Admittedly, the tenant was paying the rents only to the second
Respondent/mother till 1975 and that thereafter only, that is subsequent to the filing of Original Petition No. 18 of 1975, the revision Petitioner
herein, viz, the first Respondent in the eviction petition, was collecting the rents from him. Exhibit P-22 is the true copy of the Will executed by late
Nagappa Exhibit R-1 is the certified copy of the decree in terms of the come promise petition filed in Original Petition No. 18 of 1975 on the file of
this Court. Exhibit R-2 is the registration copy of the release deed executed by the second Respondent herein, viz, the mother in favour of the
revision Petitioner herein, in pursuance of the compromise decree passed under exhibit R-1.
In paragraph 4 of the eviction petition, it is contended that after the tenant received the 2nd notice from advocate, R. Punniyakoti Chetty in
1978, the second Respondent herein, viz, the mother, asked the tenant to pay the rents to her son, (Revision Petitioner in Civil Revision Petition
No. 3846 of 1981), as she become very old and that therefore the tenant started paying the rents to the revision Petitioner or the agent of the
second Respondent herein. The date or month or year from which the tenant started paying the rents to the revision Petitioner dealing him as agent
of the mother, have not been furnished in the petition, which was filed in the year 1979. The first notice of the Advocate Receiver, Thiru R.
Punniyakoti Chetty, is said to have been received in February, 1978.
Exhibit R-1 is the certified copy of the order in Original Petition No. 18 of 1975 dated 24th July 1975. It is sees from exhibit R-1 that the
revision Petitioner and his wife filed Original Petition No. 18 of 1975 on the file of this Court against the mother and another brother for removing
the second Respondent/mother from the execution of the Will of late Nagappa, which had been probated in Original Petition No. 64 of 1942 and
that as requested by the second Respondent/mother in the compromise petition, the demised building was allotted to the revision Petitioner with a
view'' to avoid several litigations pending in Court. It is mentioned in the terms of the compromise decree that the second Respondent mother had
agreed to inform the tenants in the properties to attorn in favour of the revision Petitioner and that the other brother of the revision Petitioner had
also, agreed to the allotment of the demised building as per the terms of the compromise The contention of the revision Petitioner is that
immediately after exhibit R-1 compromise dated 24th July, 1975, he second Respondent/mother directed the tenant to pay rents to the revision
Petitioner, that therefore only the tenant was paying the rents to him and that in order to enable the revision Petitioner to sell the property, he
obtained the Original or exhibit R-2 release deed it is on the same of release deed, viz, 17th August, 1978 the revision Petitioner has purported to
execute a registered sale deed in favour of the other revision Petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 3750 of 1981.
The revision Petitioner was examined as R.W. 2, R.W. 2s his deposed that after he got the right under exhibit R-1 Compromise decree ho
Was collecting the rents from the tenant for three years and three months. The tenant was examined as P.W. 1, In cross-examination by the
revision Petitioner the tenant has admitted that he was paying the rents to the revision Petitioner since 1975. Learned Counsel of the tenant, viz. the
first Respondent herein, conceded that the tenant started paying rents, to the revision Petitioner, M.N. Rajaram, from July 1975. It is in July 1975
the compromise decree was passed on the basis of the compromise petition, where under the second Respondent bad undertaken to request the
tenant to attorn to the revision Petitioner. It is crystal clear therefore that in pursuance of the compromise decree entered into in Original, Petition
No. 18 of 1975, the second Respondent herein had requested, the first respondent tenant to attorn to the revision Petitioner M.N. Rajaram and
pay rents to him. The tenant has not produced the receipts issued by the revision Petitioner.
Only with a view to suppresses the above facts, the tenants seems to have omitted to state in his petition about his payment of rents to the
second Respondents mother upto June 1975, or if his subsequent payment of rents to the revision Petitioner herein, M.N. Rajaram, from July
1975 upto 1978and of the fact that the second Respondent/mother had requested him to attorn to the revision Petitioner in pursuance of exhibit R-
1 compromise decree. The suppression is only for the purpose of setting up a new contention in the petition to the effect that sometime after he had
received two notices from the advocate, Thiru R. Punniyakotti Chetty, one in February 1978 and another a few months afterwards, the second
Respondent/mother had expressed her inability to, collect the rents due to her old age and requested the tenant to pay the rents to her rent, viz., the
revision Petitioner herein. The learned Counselor could not give any reason, except stating repeatedly that at the oral request of the mother to pay
the rent to her son as her agent the tenant was paying the rents to the revision Petitioner for about three years and three months. Evidently, the
tenant is motivate or his attitude in refusing to pay the rent to the other revision Petitioner as requested by the revision Petitioner herein, in the two
notices, probably apprehending that the other revision Petitioner Who has purchased might initiate eviction proceedings against him for owner''s
occupation.
Even though the tenant was paying rents from July 1975 to the revision Petitioner herein, all the other brothers including the third Respondent
were keeping quiet. Only after the revision Petitioner executed the sale deed in favour of the other revision Petitioner in August 1978, the third
Respondent''s notice was issued to the tenant stating that the revision Petitioner has no tight to sell the property, as he has only an 1/5 share and
that the other brothers have got 4/5 shares as per exhibit P-22 Will. If really the tenant was bona fide in his stand, he should have sent a registered
reply notice asking him to establish his right in the property and injunct the revision Petitioner or the other revision Petitioner from collecting rents
from him, since he had already been paying the rents to the revision Petitioner for over 3 1/4 years at the request of the second Respondent
mother, who was rightly entitled to claim the rents during her life-time. There is no explanation as to why the tenant did not send such a reply.
The third Respondent herein has been examined as R.W. 1, R.W. 1 has admitted in cross-examination that he has been collecting the rents for
hit portion in the building situated in the Mount Road, which is also a property of late Nagappa and that be has stated that no properties were
allotted to the sons of deceased Nagappa. But his admission that he has been collecting rents from the Mount Road property probabilises some
arrangement among the five sons for the collection of rents from the properties for their livelihood and maintenance. Whatever may be the share of
the five sons of late Nagappa, undoubtedly the second Respondent/mother is entitled to collect the rents from the demised building for her life-time
and she has transferred that interest in favour of the revision Petitioner and the revision Petitioner in turn has transferred the same in favour of the
other revision Petitioner. Therefore the tenant is bound to pay the rents to the revision Petitioner (Petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 3846 of
1981) during the life-time of the second Respondent/mother. The alienation by the revision Petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 3846 of 1981
in favour of the revision Petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 3750 of 1981 may be effective at least in so far as the life estate of the second
Respondent/and mother is concerned and the third Respondent or any of the brothers of the tenant himself Cannot deny such right of the second
Respondent.
The fact that the third Respondent herein might have Induced the second Respondent/mother to go behind her voluntary release of her life
interest under exhibit R-1 in favour of the revision Petitioner herein will be apparent from the counter filed on her behalf and her remaining ex parte
at the time when P.W. 1 was in the witness box. The learned Rent Controller has endorsed in the deposition of P.W. 1 for cross-examination as
follows: Respondent called absent, set ex parte. If she had been examined, she would have been confronted with exhibit R-1 compromise petition,
compromise decree and the release deed execute by her in favour of the revision Petitioner. What has been stated in the counter filed on behalf of
the second Respondent to this petition is that she alone has the right to collect the rents, that the revision Petitioner was only collecting rents on her
behalf that the third Respondent herein had conceded to the mother''s right to collect the rents, that the tenant has no right to deposit the rents and
that the tenant is bound to pay the rents to the second Respondents herein.
If the tenant was obliging enough to the second Respondent/mother to pay the rents to the revision, Petitioner as her agent from July 1975
without any written authorities from her, he could have equally obliged the second Respondent/mother after receipt of notice from the third
Respondent by stopping payment to revision Petitioner and continued to pay to the second Respondent her self. He has not done so, because he
was aware of the compromise decree under exhibit R-1 and had already attorned to revision Petitioner. On the other hand, the tenant, is very
particular in depositing the rent, because he has colluded with the third Respondent and rents to defeat the revision Petitioners with the ostensible
purpose of avoiding any charge of being evicted by the revision Petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 3750 of 1981.
The fact remains that the question of title cannot be done into in the eviction proceedings by the Rent Controller. For the limited purpose of
deciding the bonafide dispute of title, the prima facie claims of tie parties have to be incidentally judged. prima facie, it is evident that the second
Respondent, mother was entitled to collect the rents during her life time that such, right had be transferred by her in favour of her own eldest sen.
viz., the revision petition in Civil Revision Petition No. 3846 of 1981 and that the tenant had, also attorned to the revision Petitioner, Hence, the
tenant could have paid the rents either to the revision Petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 3846 of 1981 of to the revision petition in Civil
Revision Petition No. 3750 of 1981. The definition of land led in Section 2(6) of the Act encompasses the revision Petitioners also so long as the
second Respondent is alive. The definition of landlord in Section 2(6) o f the Act reads thus:
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
of on behalf of himself and others or as an agent trustee executor, administrated receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be
entitled to receive the tent if the building were let to a tenants (explanation is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Admittedly, the first
Respondent herein tenant was paying rent to the revision Petitioner ever since July 1975, i.e. after the compromise between the second
Respondent and the revision Petitioner by which the second Respondent herein had transferred her right to receive the rent for her life time in
favour of the revision Petitioner and the revision Petitioner in his turn transferred her right to receive the rent for her life time in favour of the other
revision Petitioner. The night of the third Respondent and the other brothers to receive the rent has accrued and cannot accrued during the lifetime
of the second Respondent herein and such right will be accrue only in favour of the person to whom the second Respondent has transferred her
right. The third Respondent has not filed either decree in. Original suit No. 215 of 1975 or any other document nullifying the life interest of the
second Respondent herein contrary to the probate granted to her in Original Petition No. 64 of 1942
The above legal aspects arising from Section 2(6) of the Act have not been considered by the lower Courts. The Rent Controller and the
Appellate Authority are tot expected an go in data 1 into the question of tide to the property and they (sic) only a certain whether there is bona fide
dispute over the graston of tide. The dispute raised by the third Respondent which intern was adopted by the tenant cannot be considered to be a
bona fide dispute since the third Respondent has no resent right admittedly to receive the rents u/s 2(6) of Act XVIII of 1960 had the revision
Petitioners alone have got the right to receive the rents, since the tenant is well answer of the legacy under exhibit
In the above view of the matter, the petition filed by the tenant will have to be dismissed with a direction to the tenant to pay the rent to the
revision Petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 3750 of 1981 during the life-time of the Second Respondent herein. In the result therefore, the
revision petitions are allowed with costs the petition filed by the tenant shall stand dismissed with costs, and the tenant shall pay the tents to the
revision Petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 3750 of 1981 during the life time of the second Respondent.