LexS. THANGAPPAN versus P. PADMAVATHY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l
S. THANGAPPAN
A
v.
P. PADMAVATHY
AUGUST 24, 1999
[A.P. MISRA AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.]
B
Rent and Eviction:
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960:
c
S.2(6), Explanaion- 'Landlord'-Eviction of tenant-Petition for-On
grounds of default in payment of rent and premises required for demolition
and reconstruction-Appellant-tenant denying title of respondent landlord
though admitting that he was inducted as tenant by respondent's predecessor-
in-interest-Tenant claiming that denial of title was bona fide as in a different
suit filed by Devasthanam the respondent admitted himself to be the lessee D
and not owner of the premises-Held, explanation to sub-sec. (6) of S.2
includes even a tenant to be landlord under the Act-Admittedly appel/ant-
tenant inducted into tenancy by predecessor of respondent-Appellant first
paying rent to predecessor of respondent and then to respondent-Courts
below rightly held denial of title to be not bona fide and hence non-payment E
of rent amounts to wilful default-Relationship between the parties is of
tenant and landlord-Principle of estoppel enshrined in S.116 of Evidence
Act debars a tenant from denying the title of his landlord from the beginning
of the tenancy-Evidence Act, 1872-S. l l 6-Estoppel.
Mangat Ram and Anr. v. Sardar Meharban Singh and Ors., 119871 4 F
SCC 319; L/C of India v. India Automobiles and Co. andOrs., (199014 SCC
286 and D. Satyanarayana v. P. Jagadish, (1987) 4 SCC 424, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1272-73 of
1999.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.97 of the Madras High Court.
in C.R.P. Nos. 3476 of 1985 and 830 of 1997.
M. N. Krishnamani, T. Harish Kumar, Vikas Bansal and V. Balachandran
for the Appellant.
715
G
H
716
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. I S.C.R.
A
K. Rajendra Choudhary, S. Nanda Kumar, G. Shivabalamurugan and L.K.
Pandey for the Respondent.
A.T.M. Sampath and V. Balaji for the Intervenor.
r
B
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
These appeals are directed against the order of the High Court of
Madras dated 24.11.1997 in Civil Revision Petition Nos. 3476 of 1985 and 830
of 1997 dismissing these revisions. These appeals arise under the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 {Tamil Nadu Act No. 18 of 1960),
c hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.' The short facts are that the appellant is
a tenant of the disputed premises, who was running an automobile workshop.
The respondent filed the eviction petition against him, on the grounds that
he is defaulter, not paid the rents from October 1982 to May 1983, the said
-
premises is required for demolition and reconstruction and that he has sub-
D
let a portion ofthe disputed premises.
The appellant's stand is that earlier he was under an impression that t~e
respondent is the owner of the premises but later he came to know that
Arulmigu Athikesava Perumal Peyalwar Devasthanam is the owner of the
t'
premises. So he wrote a letter to the said Devasthanam to recognise the
E appellant as a tenant. Since then and for this reason the appellant did not pay
any rent to the respondent bona fide believing the Devasthanam to be the
owner. The Rent Controller rejected this defence and held that the appellant
committed default in the payment of rent, the premises inquestion is legitimately
required by the respondent for demolition and reconstruction. However, the
F
Rent Controller rejected the case of sub-letting, which for the present appeal
is not in issue as it has become final. The appellant then filed an appeal. The
Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller and
held, there exists relation of landlord and tenant between the respondent and
the appellant and the denial of title by the appellant is not bonafide and the
default of payment of rent is wilful. Finally, the appellant filed civil revision
G before the High Court. The main contention raised before the High Court is
also the same as raised before us that the courts below have failed to
appreciate on the facts and circumstances of this case that denial of title by
'-...
the appellant is bona fide and hence non-payment of rent cannot be held to
be wilful. The appellant also relied on facts which came into existence, during
the pendency of the said revision that in fact the said Devasthanam filed a
H suit on 30th October, 1987 against the appellant and others, claiming paramount Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.