C.R.P. No. 3807 of 2007. Case: M/s M.S.M. Abdul Raheem, Mohideen Abdul Khader and Mrs. M.S. Ameen Ammal Vs M/s Precious Carrying Corporation (P) Limited, No. 103 Armenian Street, Chennai 600001, M/s Eagle Transport (Madras) Limited, 15, Armenian Street, Chennai 600001 and Yasmin & Sahira by their General Power of Attorney Agent M/s Bihari Industries Promoters P. Ltd.. High Court of Madras (India)
| Case Number | C.R.P. No. 3807 of 2007 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. P. Wilson, Senior Counsel and For Respondents: Mr. M.S. Krishnan, Senior Counsel |
| Judges | R.S. Ramanathan, J. |
| Issue | Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14, 16 |
| Citation | 2012 (5) LW 232 |
| Judgement Date | June 29, 2012 |
| Court | High Court of Madras (India) |
Order:
R.S. Ramanathan, J.
-
The landlords are the revision petitioners herein. The revision petitioners/landlords filed a Petition in RCOP.No. 1303 of 1995 for eviction, on the ground of sub-let by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent, without the written consent of the revision petitioners/landlords. The case of the revision petitioners/landlords was that, originally, the 2nd respondent was the tenant of the petition premises, bearing Door No. 15, situate at Armenian Street, G.T., Chennai - 600 001 and in the year 1984 at the instance of 2nd respondent, the tenancy, was transferred in favour of the first respondent and a lease deed, dated 06.09.1984 was also entered into between the 1st respondent and the revision petitioners/landlords in the year 1984. The 1st respondent, without the consent of the revision petitioners/landlords, sub-let the premises to the 2nd respondent and therefore, notices were issued on 09.01.1995 and 10.01.1995, calling upon the respondents to vacate the premises and as the respondents failed to vacate the premises, a Petition for eviction was filed on the ground of sub-letting by the first respondent.
-
The respondents/tenants contested the Petition, by stating that there was no sub-letting and the 2nd respondent was the tenant of the premises from the year 1969 till the year 1984. The 2nd respondent promoted a Company, which is the 1st respondent herein for record and accounting purpose and though the tenancy was transferred in the name of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent continued to be in possession of the premises along with the 1st respondent and that fact was also known to the revision petitioners/landlords and the 1st respondent is the subsidiary Company of the 2nd respondent and both are managed by the same group of persons and there was no parting of possession by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent and both of them are doing business in the same premises and rent was also paid by the 2nd respondent and that was accepted by the revision petitioners/landlords and therefore, there is no question of sub-letting by the 1st respondent.
-
The Learned Rent Controller allowed the Petition, holding that the 1st respondent sub-let the 2nd respondent and the same was proved by the revision petitioners/landlords and ordered eviction. The respondents filed an Appeal in RCA.No. 1439 of 1996 against the eviction order and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, without properly appreciating the contention of the revision petitioners/landlords and the evidence adduced by the revision petitioners/landlords allowed the appeal filed by the respondents/tenants and set aside the order of the Learned Rent Controller. Therefore, the revision petitioners/landlords filed CRP.No. 62 of 2002 and also filed an Application to receive the additional documents and this Court set aside the order passed in RCA.No. 1439 of 1996 and remanded the matter to the Learned Appellate Authority to decide the matter after affording an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary. After remand, the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence and the Learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of eviction holding that the revision petitioners/landlords failed to prove the sub-letting by the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent and 2nd respondent are sister concerns and both of them are in possession and the 2nd respondent is not in exclusive possession. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.
-
It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. P. Wilson, appearing for the revision petitioners/landlords that the Lower Appellate Court, without appreciating the Exs.P2, P4, P15, P17, P18, P22 and P24, erroneously held that the premises was in joint occupation of the both respondents and the 1st respondent did not part with any part of the premises to the 2nd respondent and various exhibits would prove the 1st respondent parted with possession of the lease hold premises in favour of the 2nd respondent and therefore, the Lower Appellate Court ought to have confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Learned Rent Controller. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in Ex.P17, the 1st respondent clearly admitted that the 1st respondent had vacated the premises and Exs.P15, P17, P18 and P22 would also prove that, after the Lease Deed was entered into between the revision petitioners/landlords and the 1st respondent, on 06.09.1984, the 2nd respondent vacated the premises and put the 1st respondent in possession of the property. Under Ex.P15 in the year 1994, the 2nd respondent came into the lease hold premises, viz., the Building No. 15, Armenian Street and under Ex.P17, it is made clear that the 1st respondent shifted his business to Appu Maistry Street from No. 15, Armenian Street Viz., the lease hold premises and this fact was not appreciated. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that, having regard to the admission of the 2nd respondent in Ex.P17 and the various Forms No. 18 filed by the 2nd respondent under Exs.P17, P18 and 22, it was clearly proved by the revision petitioners/landlords that there was parting of possession of the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent in the year 1994 and therefore, subletting was proved by the revision petitioners/landlords.
-
The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioners further submitted that the payment of rent by the 2nd respondent in the year 1994 would not make out a case that there was a tenancy in favour...
To continue reading
Request your trial