(Prayer: Petition under Section 25 of Act IX of 1887 praying the High Court to revise the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam dated 2.4.91 and made RCA 6.34/89 confirming the order of Rent Controller (DMC Tiruvarur)) dated 17.10.89 in R.C.O.P. No. 31/80.

Prayer: C.M.P. No. 704/97: To receive the copy of the plaint in O.S. 20/91 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam on add document on records.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the Appellate Authority (Sub-Court, Nagapattinam) dated 2.4.91 and made in R.C.A.No 134/89, confirming the order of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Tiruvarur dated 17.10.89 in RCOP No. 31/80.

2. The first respondent herein (landlord) filed RCOP No. 31/80 against the 2nd respondent herein and the petitioner for their eviction under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2) (ii) (b), 10(2)(vi) & (vii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (hereinafter referred to as The Act). The landlords case is that he has purchased the building in question and other buildings with the leasehold rights thereon from one Ramanathan Chettiar who was the previous owner under a registered sale deed dated 7.3. 80 (Ex.A-1) for valuable consideration. The said Ramanathan Chettiars father whose name is also Ramanathan Chettiar purchased the building in question and other building and site situate in R.S. Nos. 588 to 594 in No. 2, Vijayapuram Village in a Court auction sale held on 29.10.1935 in E.P. No. 482/34 in execution of SC. 75/31 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruvarur. The said sale was confirmed by the Court on 29.10.1935 (EX.A-2) and the Court auction purchaser took possession of the property on 24.3.39 through Court. The sites over TS Nos. 588 to 594 belong to the Abishega Kattalai of Shri Thiagarajaswamy Devasmanam, Tiruvarur. After purchase, the Court auction purchaser and his son Ramanathan Chettiar have been treated as tenants of the site by the Devasmanam and rents have been received from Ramanathan Chettiar. The last of the lease deeds executed by Ramanaman Chettiar in favour of the Devasthnam is dated 1.7.71. The said Ramanaman Chettiar was a tenant from month to month and the same is not terminated in any manner known to law. After the purchase, the municipal assessments for the petition building and other buildings which stood in the name of Ramanathan Chettiar has been transferred in the name of the first respondent herein and he is paying taxes to Thiruvarur Municipality. He is the owner of the petition building and other buildings. He has also paid the rents due by Ramanathan Chettiar for the site to the Devasthanam. The 2nd respondent herein (S. Sengammal) took the building from Ramanathan Chettiar on a monthly rent of Rs. 6/- as was paying rent to Ramanathan Chettiar. The tenant so paid the rent for some years and later defaulted taking advantage of the fact that Ramanathan Chettiar is a permanent resident of Devakkottai. He has paid municipal taxes for the building on behalf of Ramanathan Chettiar and the same was adjusted in the rent. After the first respondent has purchased, he gave a notice to the tenant Sengammal, calling upon her to pay the rent from 7.3.80 (date of purchase) and further calling upon them to vacate and surrender possession of the building. The tenant gave a reply notice on 23.6.80 through her advocate in which she has wilfully denied the title of the landlord Ramanathan Chettiar. She claims to be a direct tenant of the site under the Devasthanam. According to the landlord, the second respondent Sengammal tenant took the building under Ramanathan Chettiar and therefore, she is bound to pay the rent and surrender possession to Ramanathan Chettiar and now to the first respondent herein Ramadoss and to none else. The devasthnam has no right to collect the rent from Sengammal or any other tenant of Ramanathan Chettiar for the simple reason that the lease in favour of Ramanathan Chettiar is still subsisting and ensures for the first respondent also. The petitioner-sub tenant has wilfully denied the title of the landlord and the same is absolutely mala fide . The tenant Sengammal and Sankaran who claims right under the said Sengammal are liable to be evicted from the building in question for wilful denial of title. Admittedly, the tenants have not paid the rent to the landlord from 7.3.80 inspite of a registered notice. The default is wilful and mala fide and therefore the tenant is liable to be evicted for wilful default in payment of rent. It is submitted that the original letting by Ramanathan Chettiar to the 2nd respondent herein was for residence and she has sub-let the petition building to Sankaran the petitioner in this revision where he is vending coffee under the name of Andavar Coffee Bar. The Sub-letting is without the written consent or knowledge of Ramanathan Chettiar. Because of the non-payment of rent, the tenant has rendered herself liable for eviction and also for putting the building to a different user. The sub-tenant Sankaran has been added as a party in order to have an effective adjudication since he claims to be a sub-lessee under Sengammal.

3. The Rent Control Petition was resisted by the petitioner herein alone, who is the 2nd respondent in the Rent Control Petition. In the counter affidavit filed by him, he has stated that the site over which the superstructure stands belongs to Sri Thiagarajaswamy Devastiianam Abishega Kattalai and under the Inams Act, a patta has also been granted to the Devasmanam in regard to the site. The superstructure over the site mentioned in the petition belonged to Sengammal for 40 years and more and the said Sengammal was in possession of the superstructure and the site. She sold the superstructure that is the building with paguthi right in the site in favour of this petitioner on 12.9.1979 for valuable consideration under a registered sale deed and the petitioner Sankaran alone has been in possession of the properties from then on. He is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any right owner or his predecessors as alleged in the petition. It is contended that in none of the proceedings, i.e. , the proceedings before the small cause court, the execution petition and in the court auction purchase and the delivery through court on 24.3.39, neither the petitioner herein nor his predecessors-in-title were parties and the said proceedings therefore cannot bind the petitioner or his predecessors-in-title. According to him, the vendor of the first respondent herein was never put in possession at any point of time nor of the lands T.S. Nos. 588 to 594 mentioned in the petition. It is therefore, submitted that it was only Sengammal was in actual possession of the suit property with paguthi right in the site for more than 40 years. The sale deed by Ramanathan Chettiar will not confer title in favour of Ramadoss. The allegation that the 2nd respondent herein was a tenant under Ramanthan Chettiar is not true. She was not a tenant under Ramanathan the petitioners (Ramadoss) Vendor, nor under Ramanathan Chettiar the Court auction purchaser. No rent was collected from her nor adjusted as stated in para-5 of the petition. The allegation that there was an original letting to Sengammal is false. There is no sub-letting by Sengammal to the petitioner herein. Sengammal is a direct tenant under the Devasthanam of the site and the Devasthnam has also recognised her as tenant as well as the petitioner herein. The superstructure belonged to Sengammal and after the sale in favour of this petitioner, it belongs to him. The Devasthnam is the landlord of the site and is entitled to collect the rent. Neither Ramanathan Chettiar nor the petitioner in the eviction petition can collect rent from the petitioner herein nor entitled to collect the rent. They are not bound to pay any rent. The building superstructure always belong to Sengammal with paguthi right in the site which belonged always to the Devasthnam. The eviction petitioner Ramadoss has no paguthi right in the site nor his predecessors. The petitioner in this revision filed an additional counter stating that the building in question has been electrified by the 2nd respondent herein at her costs though the electric connection stands in the name of Sengammals son. After the sale in favour of the petitioner herein, the same belongs to him.

4. Sengammal (tenant) remained ex parte though she sent a reply to the petitioner in the eviction petition after his purchase to his notice calling upon her to vacate and surrender possession of the building. The reply notice was served on 23.6.80 through her advocate in which she wilfully denied the title of Ramadoss and Ramanathan Chettiar. The notice dated 12.6.80 and the repay dated 23.6.80 have been marked as Ex.A-30 and A-31. Though she sent a reply under Ex.A-31 denying the landlords title etc. she did not appear before the Court and contested the proceedings. She remained ex parte not only before the Rent Controller, but also before the Appellate Authority and also before this Court. The petition was contested only by the petitioner in this revision petition. Before the Rent Controller Exs.A-1 to A-68 and B-1 to B-38 were marked, on behalf of the landlord and the tenant respectively the landlord Ramadoss examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined 3 other/witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 4 including Ramanathan Chettiar. The petitioner in this revision has examined himself as R.W.1. The learned Rent Controller on a detailed consideration of the materials placed before him both oral and documentary came to the conclusion that Sengammal was a tenant from the year 1946 and Sankaran was a sub-tenant under Sengammal. He has also held that the tenant is in arrears from 7.3.80 and therefore has committed wilful default in payment of rent and that she has also wilfully denied the title of the landlord. The Rent Controller has also criticised her conduct in dragging on the matter for a period of about 9 years and odd, before the Rent Controller, Thus, for this reason and also for the various reasons, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction petition. Aggrieved by the same, the sub-tenant alone has preferred R.C.A.34/89 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Sub-Court) Nagapattinam against the landlord and also impleading Sengammal as 2nd respondent. The Appellate Authority after framing necessary points for determination and also on a consideration of the voluminous documents filed by the landlord and the tenant and also of the evidence oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the tenant has wilfully committed default in payment of rent from 7.3.80 onwards and also held that the denial of title by the tenant is also wilful and mate fide. In the concluding portion, its held that there is ample evidence to show that there is landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and therefore, non-payment of rent from 7.3.80 is wilful and the denial of landlords title is mala fide. Therefore, the Appellate Authority has confirmed the finding of the learned Rent Controller and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the sub-tenant alone has preferred the above revision under Section 25 of the Act.

5. Mr. S. Sampathkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner (sub-tenant) contended that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the revision petitioner is a sub-tenant under the 2nd respondent herein i.e., Sengammal and that the Courts below have failed to consider that the 2nd respondent had sold the petition premises to the revision petitioner herein and he is in possession of the same as purchase under Ex.B-1 dated 12.9.1979 and as such there is no question of any sub-letting as on the date of the petition. He further contended that the documents earlier to 1975 produced by the first respondent herein inasmuch as admittedly the Tiruvarur Sri Thiagarajaswami Temple is the owner of the land and the temple instituted action in 1975 against the first respondent herein and subsequently he has also surrendered possession to the temple. According to him, the land rent has been paid to the temple subsequently only by the revision petitioners vendor Sengammal and after purchase by the revision petitioner himself. Thus, it is contended that the sale deed under Ex.A-1 dated 7.3.80 is a fraudulent one created only for the purpose of instituting action to evict the revision petitioner by abusing the process of Court. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, both the Courts below have failed to consider the documents produced, to establish that the second respondent herein was the tenant of the first respondent herein are all fabricated for the purpose of the case. Therefore, he prayed that the order dated 2.4.91 made in R.C.A. No. 34/89 confirming the order dated 17.10.89 in RCOP No. 31/80 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tiruvarur be set aside and the order of eviction be vacated.

6. Mr. P. Gopalah learned counsel appearing for the landlord contended that Sengammal, the 2nd respondent herein did not contest the proceedings and therefore she was set ex parte and eviction was sought against the petitioner who is 2nd respondent therein, on the ground of wilful default, sub-letting and denial of title and the learned Rent Controller on a careful consideration of the entire materials placed before him and the voluminous documentary evidence apart from the oral evidence, came to the conclusion that the relationship of landlord and tenant had been established between the landlord and Sengammal and that the said Sengammal had sub-leased the property to Sankarn, the petitioner herein and that the tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent from 7.3.80 onwards and therefore, the order of the courts below are not liable to be interfered with at all. I was taken through the entire pleadings and also of the judgments of the courts below and the documentary evidence. It is in evidence that the property was leased out by the first respondent herein to the 2nd respondent only for residential purpose and that the 2nd respondent had sub-leased the same to the petitioner herein for non-residential purpose, there is ample evidence to show that the said Sengammal was a tenant of the premises in question on a monthly rent of Rs. 6/-. Pursuant to the decree in O.S. No. 75/31 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruvarur an Execution Petition No. 482/34 was laid by Ramanathan Chettiar and his father Ramanathan Chettiar have purchased the property in question and also other properties and buildings in the Court auction sale on 23.9.35. A perusal of Ex.A-2 would show the door numbers and the T.S. No. of the property in question. The said court auction sale was also confirmed on 29.10.1935, as per Ex.A2.The landlord also filed Exs.A-29 and A-34 to 59 various entries in the account books, They would go to show that Sengammal has paid rent to the landlords. The Income-Tax Department has also verified the account books and the same could be seen from the Income Tax Department seal affixed in the account books. A perusal of Page-24 of EX.A-28 would clearly show that rent was paid by Sengammal to Ramanathan Chettiar, The explanation given by Ramanathan Chettiar in his evidence was that Sengammal had executed a lease deed which was not traceable since the same had been lost when Ramanathan Chettiar had shifted his permanent place of residence from Tiruvarur to Devakkotai. There is no reason to disbelieve the said version, The first respondent immediately after his purchase issued a notice under Ex.A-30 and the revision petitioner sent a reply on 23.6.80 under Ex.A-31. In fact, the second respondent Sengammal after receipt of summons in the RCOP appeared before the Court and sought time for filing her reply. The court granted time till 9.12.80. But, on that date she did not appear before the Court and therefore, she was set ex parte. I have already noticed Ex.A-29 and A-34 to 59 which were filed to show that Sengammal was the tenant under Ramanathan Chettiar from 1940 onwards. On the other hand, the documents filed by the tenant under Ex.B-1, B-2, B-3 to B-6 would only show that rent has been paid only for the site. The rent Controller has rightly eschewed the documents B-7 to B-36 on the ground that those documents came into existence after the RCOP. In fact, one Sowri Rajan (P.W.3) was the tenant before Sengammal and this fact could be noticed from Exs.A-34, 35 and 36. The evidence of P.W.3 Sowri Rajan is corroborated by other witnesses. The denial of title by the tenant, in my opinion totally lacks bona fide , and has been thought of only with a view to prolong the proceedings or even to secure a termination of the proceedings before the authorities constituted under the Act. On the ground that the parties should be referred to a Civil Court for adjudication. On the materials available and on the facts and circumstances of the case, there is absolutely no room for any doubt that the denial of title by the tenant of the landlord lacks bona fide. Under Ex.B-1 the revision petitioner claims title. But there is no document to show that Sengammal was the owner of the superstructure. But, on the other hand, the landlord filed Ex.A-2 dated 29.10.3.5 court auction sale certificate. The said building has been assessed to house tax under Exs.A-3 to A-28 all before the date of the eviction petition; and after. But not a scrap of paper has been filed by the tenant to show that the building was assessed in the name of Sengammal at any point of time. Ex.A-55 will go to show that the landlords vendor has been receiving the rent and also assessed to income tax. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the account books which have been maintained in the regular of business. The same account books have been produced the Income Tax Authorities. The Sub-tenant has not challenged the account books filed by the landlord.

7. Section 26 of the Act provides that any order for the eviction of a tenant passed under this Act shall be binding on all sub-tenants who were made parties in the application for eviction but any person who became a subtenant after the date of the application for eviction shall be bound by the order of eviction and be evicted as if he were a party to the proceedings, provided such order was not obtained by fraud or collusion. Under Order 21, Rule 35 CPC., where a decree is for the delivery of the immovable property, possession thereof shall be delivered to the party to whom it has been adjudged, if necessary, by removing persons bound by the decree who refused to vacate the property. Therefore, the landlord who has obtained an order of eviction will be entitled under the provision to have the premises delivered to him if necessary by removing any sub-tenant in possession as he would be bound by the order of eviction. It is settled law that a decree in ejectment passed against a tenant at the instance of the landlord is not only on the tenant but also on his sub-tenant. Section 26 of the Act is only an enabling provision and does not affect the well established principle that the sub-tenant has no independent right under tire Act and in the absence of contest by the main tenant for valid reasons and in the absence of fraud of collusion between the landlord and the tenant it is not permissible for the tenant to stultify the proceeding for eviction by the landlord by putting forth any independent contention of his own. In the instant case, the sub-tenant is a party to the proceedings throughout, and the main tenant though appeared in court at the first instance and took time for filing objection statement, did not appear before the Court to set her ex parte. In the Act, the sub-tenant as such is not recognised and if a landlord brings a suit in ejectment, a sub-tenant let into possession cannot raise any question and submit that he has a status under the Act which should be safeguarded by its provisions. The sub-tenant, as such has not been given any protection under the Act and it is not concerned with the relationship between the tenants and the sub-tenants. If a landlord has got a right to evict the lessee and to recover possession of the entire premises, the sub-lessee will have no independent right or superior rights on the basis of the sub-lease in his favour. It has also been decided by catena of decisions that the subtenant who is in possession is a tenant only of his lessor and the sub-tenant will have neither a privity of contract nor of privity of estate so far as superior lessor is concerned and the fact that the main tenant is allergen to have purchased the superstructure does not matter at all. In this case, the landlord has impleaded the sub-tenant also as a party/respondent in the Rent Control proceedings in order that the question whether the lease has been properly determined and the landlord is entitled to recover possession of the premises, may be decided in his presence so that he may have the opportunity to see that there is no collusion between the landlord and the tenant under or through whom he claims and to seek protection under the Act, if he is entitled to any. In the instant case, both the tenant and sub-tenant were made parties/respondents and it is not the case of the sub-tenant that there is collusion between the landlord and the tenant. In this case where the sub-tenant alone is the contesting party throughout the proceedings, the order of eviction passed by the Courts below could be binding on him on its own force. In my opinion, the sub-tenant is bound by the order of eviction against the main tenant. It is settled law that a decree for possession of the premises obtained against a tenant can be straightway be executed as against the property in the hands of the sub-tenant even though the sub-tenant was not a party to the proceedings in which eviction was passed. In this case the Appellate Authority also for the same reasoning has ordered eviction against the tenant and the subtenant. The reasonings given by the Courts below are cogent and convincing and with reference to the evidence on record.

8. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy Chettiar (1980 (4) SCC 259 [LQ/SC/1980/143] ) held that the concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority regarding its finding, are not open to interference by High Court unless unreasonable resulting in miscarriage of justice.

9. Under Section 25 of the Act, this Court can call for and examine the records of the Appellate Authority, in order to satisfy itself, which power is essentially a power of superintendence. As already noticed, in this case the concurrent finding by the Rent Control and the Appellate Authorities are not only rendered on the basis of voluminous evidence both oral and documentary but also on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. I am therefore, totally convinced that the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below are not to be interfered with, and hence I confirm the same and order eviction.

10. The contention of the landlord is that the tenant should be evicted from the premises on the question of denial of title of the landlord. Such contention has to be upheld. The landlord has taken this plea in the Court below itself while seeking the eviction of the tenant. The Supreme Court has observed that the denial of title constituted ground for eviction provided the denial is not bona fide and it is not necessary that in order to constitute a ground j for eviction denial of title must be anterior to [the filing of the eviction petition. In this case, it has been specifically stated in the Rent Control Petition that the denial of title by the tenant is not bona fide. I have already held on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of the evidence on record that the denial of title of the landlord by the tenant totally lacks bona fide and has been thought of only with a view to prolong the litigation.

11. The revision petitioner has also filed C.M.P. No. 704/97 to receive copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 20/91 on the file of the Sub-Court, Nagapattinam, as additional document on record. In the affidavit filed in support t of the above C.M.P., the petitioner has not disclosed any reason as to why the plaint in O.S. No. 20/91 is sought to be filed as an additional document in this revision. The revision petitioner has not made any averment or made out a case for filing the copy of the plaint in the said suit for the purpose of placing reliance on the plaint to decide the claim in this revision. The C.R.P. has been filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below holding that the petitioner is liable to be evicted from the premises. The proceedings in question are covered by the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the subject matter of the eviction petition is the building in question whereas O.S. 21/91 is in respect of the land only. I have perused the plaint. The subject matter of the suit is not the subject matter of the Rent Control Petition. Since the subject matter of both the proceedings are not one and the same, there is no necessity to place reliance on the document which is now sought to be filed by way of additional document. The tenant in this proceeding has dragged on the proceedings for more than 16 years only with mala fide intention of protracting the litigation and to squat on the property endlessly for ever. In the affidavit filed in support to this CMP, there is no averment as to why the petitioner at this distance of time seeks the indulgence of the Court for filing the document as additional evidence. As mentioned earlier, since the subject matter of the Rent Control Petition relates to the building alone, having entered into possession as a tenant, taking advantage of non-payment of rent, for the petition premises, the petitioner cannot improve their claim by filing the above petition. The CMP is therefore, devoid of merits and therefore, is dismissed.

12. For all the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the C.RP. Therefore, both the CRP and CMP fail and are dismissed, with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid to respondent No. 1 R. Ramadoss.