2002 (5) TMI 891 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 to the suit premises.
2. Relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellants and the respondent.
3. Bona fide nature of the appellants' denial of the respondent's title to the suit premises.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960:
The appellants contended that the suit premises belonged to a religious charitable Trust and hence were exempt from the provisions of the Act. The Trust was established by Mandi Venkata Naicker in 1900 and supplemented in 1911, with the second appellant being inducted as a tenant in 1942. The respondent claimed ownership through a sale deed from S. Gowthaman, an heir of Venkata Naicker. The High Court had previously held that the Trust was a religious endowment under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, which exempted it from the Act. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in reversing the Appellate Authority's prima facie view that the suit property belonged to the Trust and was exempt from the Act.

2. Relationship of Landlord and Tenant:
The appellants argued there was no landlord-tenant relationship with the respondent, as they had always been tenants under the Trust. The Rent Controller and the High Court accepted the respondent's claim that the appellants had acknowledged Gowthaman as their landlord and paid rent to him, thus establishing a landlord-tenant relationship. However, the Supreme Court noted that the appellants were originally inducted by the Trust and had challenged the derivative title of the respondent, which the Rent Controller did not adequately address.

3. Bona Fide Nature of Denial of Title:
The appellants denied the respondent's title, asserting that Gowthaman had no right to transfer the property. The Rent Controller found the denial not bona fide and ordered eviction. The Appellate Authority, however, held the denial bona fide and directed the respondent to establish his claim in a Civil Court. The High Court reversed this, but the Supreme Court concluded that the Rent Controller could not decide the issue of title and should have referred the matter to a Civil Court. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellants' challenge to the derivative title was legitimate and should be resolved in a Civil Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, holding that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction to finally adjudicate the issues related to the title and the applicability of the Act to the suit premises. The Court allowed the appeal, permitting the respondent to seek determination of the issues in a competent Civil Court, without any prejudice from observations made in this judgment. There was no order as to costs.