Thayarammal, Jayakaran, Jayanthi and Jai Ganesh vs Chandra Ammal

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners is present and argued the case. There is no

representation to the learned Counsel for th respondent even after 4.00 pm. Under this Revision the judgment passed in RCA. No. 6 of 2003 on

the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge) Ranipet is challenged.

The landlord filed RCOP. No. 19 of 1998 against the tenant u/s 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. According

to the landlord, the land of the petition scheduled premises belonged to Navalpur Mosque, Ranipet and the said land was taken on lease by the

petitioner''s father Poongavana Gounder some 50 years back from the then muthavali of the said Mosque. Thereafter, the said Poongavana

Gounder had constructed a superstructure in the said site and was carrying on business of charcoal, oil, keroseine etc. And was also regularly

paying the rent to the Muthavali of Navalpur Mosque. Since Poongavana Gounder could not carry on business, he closed the same about 15 years

back and let out the building to the respondents for a monthly rent of Rs. 130/- and the respondent conducting a welding shop in the petition

scheduled premises. Poongavana Gounder died in the year 1993 while he was alive in the year 1991 he transferred the lease hold interest in

respect of the petition scheduled premises in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner continues to pay the rent for the site to the Navalpur

Mosque. According to the petitioner, the respondent had committed default in payment of rent from October-1996. The petitioner issued legal

notice dated 18.09.1997. But there was no reply to the said legal notice from the side of the respondent. The rental arrears for 47 months is to be

paid by the respondent. So on the ground of wilful default, the tenant/respondent is liable to be evicted. Hence, the petition.

The respondent in his counter would contend that since the petitioner is not the owner of the site and the owner of the superstructure, the

present petition filed by the petitioner for eviction is not maintainable. The provision of Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act is not at

all applicable to the present facts of the case. This respondent was not paying any rent to Poongavana Gounder much less Rs. 130/- per month as

alleged in the petition. No name transfer has been effected in the name of the petitioner as alleged in the petition. The respondent is not in arrears of

rent from October-1996. The respondent is paying electricity consumption charges. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Before the Tribunal P.W.1 & P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 were marked on the side of the petitioner. On the side of the

respondent, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.7 were marked. Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.3 were marked as Court exhibits. After

meticulously going through the evidence both oral and documentary the Tribunal / District Munsif, Ranipet, had allowed the petition giving two

months time for the tenant to vacate and handover vacant possession. Aggrieved by the findings of the Tribunal the tenant has approached the

learned Rent Control Appellate Authority / Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, in RCA. No. 6 of 2003. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority,

finding no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Rent Controller, has dismissed the appeal, which necessitated the tenant to approach

this Court by way of this Revision.

Now the point for determination in this revision is whether the findings of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA. No. 6 of 2003

is liable to be dismissed for the reasons stated in the ground of revision?

The Point:-The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners / tenants would contend that the revision itself is not maintainable as per Section 56

of the Wakf Act 1995. Section 56 of the Wakf Act 1995 runs as follows:

Restriction on power to grant lease of wakf proeprty_ (1) A lease or sub-lease for any period exceeding three years of any immovable

property which is wakf property shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the deed or instrument of wakf or in any other law for the time being in

force, be void and of no effect.

(2) A lease or sub-lease for a period exceeding one year and not exceeding three years of immovable property which is wakf property shall,

notwithstanding anything contained in the deed or instrument of wakf or in any other law for the time being in force, be void and of no effect unless

it is made with the previous sanction of the Board.

(3) The Board shall, in granting sanction for lease or sub-lease or renewal thereof under this section review the terms and conditions on which the

lease or sub-lease is proposed to be granted or renewed and make its approval subject to the revision of such terms and conditions in such manner

as it may direct.

According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, as per the evidence of P.W.1 and also as per the pleading in the petition, the petition

scheduled land belongs to Navalpur Mosque, a wakf property. Ex.A.16 - A Register and Ex.A.17 - Suvery Field Register will also go to show

that the petition scheduled land belongs to Navalpur Mosque. Ex.A.14 and Ex.A.15 are the rental receipts issued by Navalpur Mosque to

Poongavan Gounder, the father of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, it is clear that the land scheduled to the petition belongs to the

Mosque. As per Section 29 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), the Government is

empowered to exempt any building or clause of buildings from all or any of the provision of the Act by issue of notification. As per G.O.Ms. No.

2000, Home, dated 16th August, 1976, the Government had exempted all the buildings owned by the Hindu, Christian and Muslim religious public

trusts and public charitable trusts from all the provisions of the Act. Under such circumstances, the findings of the learned

Rent Control Appellate Authority that since the petitioner comes within the purview of the definition of Section 2 sub-clause 6 of the Act, the

petitioner is entitled to maintain the petition cannot be sustainable. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that this is a fit case for remand to

the Rent Control Appellate Authority for deciding the question whether the RCOP itself is maintainable.

In fine, the Revision is allowed and the order in RCA. No. 6 of 2003 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet (Rent Control Appellate

Authority), is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet, for deciding the question whether the RCOP is maintainable

and to dispose of the case on or before 30.04.2009. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.