@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
P.R. Shivakumar, J.@mdashThe arguments advanced by Mr. G.S. Sivakumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner are heard. The grounds of revision, copies of the orders of the Court below and the other documents produced in the form of typed-set of papers are also perused. Admittedly, Kannappa Chettiar (since deceased) was the original landlord, who filed the eviction petition in R.C.O.P. No. 1909 of 1995 before the Rent Controller against one Habib Rahman and Iyyappa Lottery Centre on the premise that the said Habib Rahman was the tenant under Kannappa Chettiar in respect of a non-residential portion in the ground floor of the building bearing Door No. 317, Poonamallee High Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai 29. Eviction was sought for on the ground of willful default in payment of rent, unauthorized subletting to Iyyappa Lottery Centre and for bonafide requirement for additional accommodation. The alleged sub-tenant Iyyappa Lottery Centre did not contest the R.C.O.P. Habib Rahman alone contested the R.C.O.P. on the basis of his counter admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner in the R.C.O.P. and himself and denying the other averments made in the eviction petition. During the pendency of the R.C.O.P. the original petitioner Kannappa Chettiar died and his legal heirs came on record as petitioners 2 to 7. When the order was sought to be executed, the revision petitioner made an obstruction and filed E.A. No. 104 of 2011 claiming that his father Sikanther Ali was the tenant in respect of the petition premises and after his death, he became the tenant and that the eviction order obtained against Habib Rahman could not be executed and enforced against the revision petitioner.
2. The learned Rent Controller, after hearing, held that the revision petitioner was a person set up by the judgment debtor to resist the execution of a valid eviction order and accordingly dismissed the said execution petition by order dated 21.11.2013. As against the order dismissing E.A. No. 104 of 2011, the revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 658 of 2013. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, after hearing and on re-appreciation of evidence recorded in E.A. No. 104 of 2011, concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 01.02.2014. Questioning the correctness and legality of the said judgment and decree of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the present revision has been filed u/s 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960.
3. The contention of the revision petitioner seems to be that the first judgment debtor Habib Rahman had nothing to do with the tenancy, as he was a person entrusted with the business run by the revision petitioner in the petition premises and that the eviction order obtained against such a person, who was looking after the business on behalf of the revision petitioner, was ineffective against the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner in his attempt to contend that he alone is the tenant in respect of the petition premises and Habib Rahman (JD No. 1) was not a tenant as claimed by the respondents herein, who are admittedly the landlords in respect of petition premises, has chosen to take tantalizing stands by projecting the said Habib Rahman as a partner at one place and at another place by contending that Habib Rahman, who was looking after the business on behalf of the revision petitioner, did betray the revision petitioner in not bringing to the notice of the rent controller the fact that the revision petitioner alone was the tenant in respect of the petition premises.
4. The Execution Application No. 104 of 2011 itself describes the JD No. 1 Habib Rahman as a partner with the revision petitioner. In the very cause title provided in the Execution Application, Habib Rahman was arrayed as 8th respondent with the explanatory note that he was a partner with the tenant, namely the revision petitioner. Having taken such a stand, the revision petitioner took a deviation during enquiry in the execution application to project his case as if originally his father and after him he himself was the actual tenant and the said Habib Rahman was entrusted with the management of the business run by the revision petitioner for an agreed sum to be paid to him periodically. It was also contended that though the rent came to be paid by Habib Rahman, such payments were made only on behalf of the revision petitioner. However, except a receipt for payment of advance by Sikanther Ali, the father of the revision petitioner, for a sum of Rs. 5000/- in the year 1979, which was produced by the revision petitioner as Ex. P1, there is no other document to show that either Sikanther Ali or the revision petitioner made payment of rent in respect of the petition premises subsequently.
5. The eviction petition was filed on the basis of the contention that Habib Rahman was the tenant and he had sublet the premises to Iyyappa Lottery Centre. No rental receipt issued for the payments made by Habib Rahman contains any reference to Sikanther Ali or the revision petitioner as the tenant on whose behalf the rent was paid. Admittedly, Habib Rahman was allowed to make payment of rent directly to the landlords. To the question put to the revision petitioner as to whether the receipts were issued in favour of the revision petitioner for the payment of the rent made by Habib Rahman, the answer given was in the negative. The revision petitioner, who chose to trade an allegation against habib Rahman as he had betrayed him and acted against the interest of the revision petitioner, has made a crucial admission during cross-examination that even after he came to know that Habib Rahman had acted against the interest of the revision petitioner, he was allowed to pay rent, but such payments were only on behalf of the revision petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that at least after the fact that Habib Rahman was acting against the interest of the revision petitioner, came to his notice he could have insisted upon payment of rent as against a receipt to be issued in the name of the revision petitioner. But, he did not do so. The contention of the revision petitioner that even after he came to know that an order of eviction was passed against Habib Rahman holding him to be the tenant in respect of petition premises under the landlords, he permitted Habib Rahman to make payment of rent on his behalf in the Court is quite unnatural and improbable. As rightly held by the Courts below, the revision petitioner is very much aware of the institution of the eviction proceedings and also the passing of the eviction order, but he did not take any effective steps to establish his claim that he was the actual tenant and the eviction was ordered against a person who was his representative for managing the business run by the revision petitioner, till he faced a threat of forcible eviction in execution of the eviction order in 2011. The learned Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority accordingly held that the revision petitioner, who was aware of the proceedings pending from 1997, did nothing till 2011 and in 2011 alone he came forward with the claim petition, as he was set up as an obstructor by the judgment debtor No. 1 to provide hurdle for the execution of the order of eviction. Such a concurrent finding made by the Courts below cannot be stated to be either defective or erroneous. More over, even on the strength of the plea made by the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner is bound to fail in his attempt to provide a successful obstruction for the execution of the eviction order. According to the revision petitioner himself, the Judgment Debtor No. 1, namely Habib Rahman was a partner of the revision petitioner in running the business in the petition premises. Once he is projected as a partner of the revision petitioner, he will represent all the partners of the firm by virtue of the principle of mutual agency inherent in the relationship of partnership. If the contention of the revision petitioner is approached in this angle, the admission made by him that even after the dispute arose he allowed Habib Rahman to make payment on his behalf will make it clear that he was permitted to act on behalf of the revision petitioner also. As such the obstruction made by the revision petitioner cannot be sustained in law and the Courts below have rightly held that the claim petition made by the revision petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of Court which deserves rejection. There is no merit in the revision and the revision deserves to be rejected at the threshold.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
