Mrs. Yashoda Raju Vs. A. Kuselan - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- ordera. kulasekaran, j. 1. this revision is posted for admission and i heard the counsel for the petitioner.2. the tenant is the revision petitioner, who has filed miscellaneous petition no. 270 of 2001 in rcop no. 44 of 2000 seeking permission to file additional counter, which was dismissed by the learned rent controller. the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the appellate authority, hence this revision petition.3. on 07-06-2000, the respondent herein has filed rcop no. 44 of 2000 before the learned rent controller, ootacamund for eviction against the petitioner herein under section 10(2)(1) and 14(1)(b) of the rent control act. the petitioner herein has filed his counter on 28-09-2000 through his then counsel. in para-2 of the counter, the petitioner has admitted that.....

Judgment:
ORDER

A. Kulasekaran, J.

1. This revision is posted for admission and I heard the counsel for the petitioner.

2. The tenant is the revision petitioner, who has filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 270 of 2001 in RCOP No. 44 of 2000 seeking permission to file additional counter, which was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the appellate authority, hence this revision petition.

3. On 07-06-2000, the respondent herein has filed RCOP No. 44 of 2000 before the learned Rent Controller, Ootacamund for eviction against the petitioner herein under Section 10(2)(1) and 14(1)(b) of the Rent Control Act. The petitioner herein has filed his counter on 28-09-2000 through his then counsel. In Para-2 of the counter, the petitioner has admitted that the respondent herein is the landlord. The petitioner also filed suit O.S. No. 74 of 2000 before the District Munsif, Ootacamund to restrain the respondent herein from dispossessing her without due process of law. In the said suit, she has also filed I.A. No. 163 of 2000. In both the suit and interim application, the petitioner herein has mentioned the respondent as her landlord. Not content with, the petitioner has also referred in the RCOP No. 54 of 2000 filed by her against the respondent herein as landlord. An advocate Commissioner was appointed by the court below in M.P. No. 42 of 2000 in RCOP No. 44 of 2000 wherein the petitioner has filed counter on 27-09-2001 admitting the fact that the respondent is the landlord.

4. While things are such as stated above, the petitioner herein has filed M.P. No. 270 of 2001 only in RCOP No. 44/2000 seeking leave of the Court to file additional counter to say that the respondent is not the landlord. On careful analysis of the facts and materials placed, the learned Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority rejected the claim of the petitioner.

5. It is more relevant to look into the provisions of Section 2(6) wherein the 'definition' landlord 'includes the person who is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent for 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 or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive rent, if the building were let out to a tenant.

6. It is evident from the said definition that the landlord is defined under the Act and it is comprehensive enough to take in persons who are not strictly landlord under the general Law. As far as the Rent Control application is concerned, it is not the ownership of the property that entitles a person to file a petition for eviction but when a person comes under the definition of landlord mentioned in Section 2(6) of the Rent Control Act, he is entitled to maintain a petition for eviction. Hence, the leave sought for by the petitioner herein for fling additional counter to say that the respondent herein is not the owner of the premises, despite the fact that the petitioner has been paying the rent only to him all along and filed several proceedings referring and recognising him as landlord was rightly rejected by the courts below after consideration.

7. As rightly pointed out by both the courts below, the petitioner is estopped from taking a different stand, which is made clear under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act contemplates that no tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property of license of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such license was given.

8. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act sets out in clear term that during the continuance of tenancy, a tenant cannot be permitted to deny the title of the landlord. The decision of the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Atyam Veeraraju and others v. Pechetti Venkanna and others) AIR 1996 SC 629 held in para-13 as follows:-

'13. Having regard to Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, during the continuance of the tenancy, a tenant will not be permitted to deny the title of the deity at the beginning of the tenancy. In Bilas Kanwar V. Desraj Ranjit Singh, ILR 37 All 557: AIR 1915 PC 96 the Privy Council observed: 'A tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlord's title however defective it may be so, so long as he has not openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord.'

The ratio laid down in the above judgment by the Honourable Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case on hand.

9. For the foregoing reasons, I confirm the order passed by the courts below. The revision fails, liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. NO costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.