Must a landlord establish ownership of the premises to obtain eviction under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960?

Paragraph 20Savitri Bai And Another VS. Savitri Bai, reported in, 2024 INSC 152; and

Paragraph 21State of Punjab And Others VS. Bhagwantpal Singh Alias Bhagwant Singh (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives, reported in, (2024) 15 SCC 139. 14. Mr.Madhan Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner would therefore state that the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority have miserably failed to make a judicious approach in dealing with the contentious issues and having failed to see that admittedly there has been no attornment of tenancy by the petitioner in favour of the respondent, the eviction petition ought to have been dismissed. He would also take me through the findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority to contend that no https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/08/2026 07:51:53 pm ) reasons have been assigned and discussions with regard to the grounds of eviction are cryptic and not backed by any germane discussion whatsoever. He would therefore persuade me to exercise powers under Section 25 of the Act to interfere with the concurrent findings rendered by the Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 15. Per contra. Mrs. Chithra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord would firstly contend that the Rent Control Proceedings are summary in nature and it is not required for the Rent Controller for conducting a roving enquiry like in a Civil Suit, where a title dispute is being settled or decided. She would further contend that a certified copy of the sale deed has been filed and it would tantamount to primary evidence being filed. In this regard, she has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Appaya Vs. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi and others, reported in 2024 19 SCC 602. It is also the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, when the petitioner himself had admitted to the fact that the respondent had purchased the property under the registered sale deed from the Administrators of Meera Bai Dawson, it is not even necessary for the respondent to establish ownership. 16. As regards the argument of Mr.Madhan Babu, that the respondent has not established the existence of the landlord/tenant relationship, Mrs.Chithra https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/08/2026 07:51:53 pm ) Sampath, learned Senior Counsel would submit that even according to the petitioner, his father was inducted only as a tenant under Meera Bai Dawson and therefore, when the estate of the Meera Bai Dawson, has been duly administered after getting letters of administration from the High Court in exercise of original jurisdiction, it being a judgment in rem, the grant would bind the petitioner and as long as the grant has not been revoked or recalled or set aside, the administrators were well within the rights to deal with the property, including sale in favour of the respondent. She would therefore state that it is not open to the petitioner to toe a line of argument that the non production of the original sale deed was fatal to the case of the respondent. 17. As regards attornment, Mrs.Chithra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel would rely on my decision in Uma Vs. K.Purushothaman, reported in 2025 SCC Online Madras 219, where I had an occasion to deal with a right of transferee vis a vis a tenant occupying the property under the transferor. The learned Senior Counsel would further state that with regard to purchase of superstructure admittedly, annexure IA, reflects existence of a superstructure and it is not as if only vacant land was purchased by the respondent and therefore, when the petitioner has come forward with a specific case that his father put up the superstructure, it was for the respondent to establish the said contention. Taking me through the evidence of R.W.1, the revision petitioner, she would contend that admittedly the respondent has not been able to produce https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/08/2026 07:51:53 pm ) any shred of evidence, much less, acceptable documentary evidence that the superstructure was put up by his father. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore state that the Courts below have rightly drawn adverse inference against the respondent and proceeded to order eviction. She would also state that despite knowing about the claim made by the respondent under the sale deed and having impleaded the respondent in the suit for injunction before this Court, the petitioner has not come forward to recognise the respondent as landlord and pay rents and in such circumstances, the Courts below cannot be said to be in error, in ordering eviction on the grounds of willful default and denial of title. 18. As regards demolition and reconstruction, the learned Senior Counsel would state that the respondent has established its bonafides by production of the sanctioned/approved plan for purposes of demolition and reconstruction and it is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent is not possessed of sufficient funds to put up construction as well, admittedly when the remaining lands have been utilised by already putting up multi-storeyed construction. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore pray for dismissal of the revision petition. 19. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side and I have also gone through the order of the Rent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/08/2026 07:51:53 pm ) Controller, the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the documents filed by way of typedsets as well as the judgments that have been relied on by the learned counsel on either side. 20. It is trite law that in Rent Control proceedings, the question of title or ownership is not germane, but what is relevant is the existence of landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. Definition of landlord under Section 2(6) of the The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Act 18 of 1960,, itself makes it clear that a landlord need not be the owner. Therefore, the entire arguments of Mr.Madhan Babu, learned counsel revolving around the challenge to the title of the respondent, in my considered opinion, may not be a relevant factor to decide the present revision petition. Be that as it may, though elaborate submissions have been with regard to non production of the original sale deed and that even in the absence of the sale deed in original, there is no other document produced on the side of the respondent to establish ownership, when the partitioner does not challenge the sale in favour of the respondent and there is also a clear admission that the petitioner's father was originally inducted as a tenant, I do not see the non filing of the original sale deed to be fatal to the case of the respondent. 21. With regard to admissibility of the document or its contents, especially when secondary evidence is let in, however, it should be remembered https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/08/2026 07:51:53 pm ) that Rent Control Proceedings are not tried like a Civil Suit. Elaborate trial is also not contemplated under the Act. Proceedings are summary in nature and have been repeatedly held to be so by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Appaiya’s case, (referred herein supra), when a certified copy of the sale deed has been produced, it can very well be treated as primary evidence and not merely as secondary evidence. This decision will squarely apply to the facts of the present case.

Paragraph 29Before proceeding to deal with the specific grounds of eviction sought for in the present case, I shall discuss the decisions that have been relied on by Mr.Madhan Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner. In Cement Corpn of India Limited, David Joseph Guido, Savitri Bai and Tharammel Peethambaram's cases (referred herein supra), the Courts have dealt with admissibility of secondary evidence by production of certified copies. Though Mr.Madhan Babu has relied on the above decisions, where Courts have consistently held that when there is no explanation as to why primary evidence has not been produced, secondary evidence cannot be permitted to be let in, it should be borne in mind, that the present proceedings are arising under the Tamil Nadu https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/08/2026 07:51:53 pm ) Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act. It is a self contained Code and proceedings are conducted in a summary manner and strict rules of evidence, which cannot be dispense with in a Civil Court are not per se, applicable to Rent Control proceedings. Further, as rightly contended by Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned Senior Counsel, when the factum of purchase under the said sale deed has not been disputed by the revision petitioner, I do not see why the respondents should be non suited for non production of the original sale deed.