Pichai Chetty & Other v. N. K. Muthukrishnan — 1991 DIGILAW 653 (MAD)

Judgment :- The legal representatives of the deceased tenant are the petitioners herein. The petitioner premises is situate at No. 5, 1st Cross Street, New Colony, Saidapet, Madras-15. The respondent herein purchased the premises under a registered sale deed dt. 18.8.1986 from M.C. Gopal. The petitioners herein are in occupation of the ground oor of the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/. The respondent herein is in occupation of the first floor. The petition for eviction was filed under Ss. 10(2) (i) and 10(3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the landlord, the tenant failed and neglected to pay the rent from 1.7.1986 till 31.10.86 and also committed act of waste, materially impairing the value and utility of the building. Further according to the landlord, he required the portion under the occupation of the tenants by way of additional accommodation. Therefore, the landlord sent a notice tothe tenant on 2.10.1986 callingupon them to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition premises. But there was no reply to the notice sent by the landlord. 2. According to the tenants there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent herein. The tenants are not recognising the respondent herein as the landlord. The petitioners herein are tenants in respect of the petition premises under one Rajeswariammal, to whom the petitioners were paying the rent regularly from the inception of tenancy in 1972 onwards. There is a suit O.S. No. 2742 of 1987 pending on the file of City Civil Court, Madras questioning the title of the respondent herein for the petition premises. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the respondent herein to say that the petitioners herein committed wilful default in payment of rent. During the pendency of the H.R.CO.P. No. 3702 of 1986, the respondent herein filed a petition under S.ll(4) of the Act in M.P. No. 1063 of 1987 for collecting the arrears of rent. The petitioners herein filed a counter stating that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant [between the respondent and the petitioners and therefore the respondent herein cannot ask the petitioners herein to pay the rent. However, the Rent Controller after hearing both the parties directed the petitioners herein to deposit a sum of Rs. The petitioners herein filed a counter stating that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant [between the respondent and the petitioners and therefore the respondent herein cannot ask the petitioners herein to pay the rent. However, the Rent Controller after hearing both the parties directed the petitioners herein to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,200/- towards arrears of rent on or before 22.10.1987, but the petitioners herein did not comply with that order. Therefore, the Rent Controller, terminated the proceedings and ordered eviction on 23.10.1987. The petitioners herein did not file any appeal against the order passed in M.P. No. 1063 of 1987. But the petitioners herein filed an appeal R.C.A. No. 840 of 1987 against the order of eviction passed in the main R.C.O.P. No. 3702 of 1986. The Rent Control Appellate Authority entertained the appeal and ultimately came to the conclusion that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent herein. Accordingly, the appellate authority confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. As against the order, the present revision has been preferred by the tenants before this court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein submitted as under; The order passed in M.P. No. 1063 of 1987 has got merged with the order passed in the main RCOP. No. 3702 of 1986 dated 23.10.1987 and therefore a separate appeal against the order passed in the petition under S. 11(4) of the Act is not necessary. The learned counsel submitted that the appeal against the order passed in RCOP. No. 3702 of 1986 would comprehensively cover the question arising under S. 11(4) of the Act also. According to the tenants, a bona fide dispute is in existence with regard to the title over the petition premises between the respondent herein and one Rajeswariammal. A suit O.S. No. 2742 of 1987 is also pending in the City Civil Court, Madras in this respect. Therefore, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and petitioners herein. The petitioners herein were regularly paying the rent to the said Rajeswariammal. According to the petitioners herein the said Rajeswariammal is the owner of the premises. A suit O.S. No. 2742 of 1987 is also pending in the City Civil Court, Madras in this respect. Therefore, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent and petitioners herein. The petitioners herein were regularly paying the rent to the said Rajeswariammal. According to the petitioners herein the said Rajeswariammal is the owner of the premises. It was further submitted that the tenant has not committed any act of waste as alleged by the respondent herein and the requirement of the petition premises by way of additional accommodation under S. 10 (3) (e) of the Act is also not bona fide. In fact, the tenant has paid the rent in a accordance with the direction given by this court. Therefore, it was pleaded that the order of eviction passed by the authorities below is liable to be set aside; 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted as under;-The respondent herein purchased the petition premises on 18.8.1986 from one Mr. Gopal who in turn purchased the property from one Chinpaiyan, who is the power of attorney agent of Rajeswariammal. After the purchase of the petition premises by the respondent herein, the petitioners herein refused to pay the rent to the respondent herein. It is not correct on the part of the petitioners herein to deny the title of the respondent herein over the petition premises. In so far as the suit O.S. No. 2742 of 1986 is concerned, that was filed by him for injunction restraining the said Rajeswariammal from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property. The suit was later on withdrawn by the respondent herein. Therefore, it was submitted that the petitioners herein could not have entertained any bona fide doubt with regard to the title over the property. After the purchase of the petition premises, the respondent herein sent a notice on 2.10.1986 to the petitioner herein calling upon them to pay the arrears of rent. But the petitioners herein did not send any reply to the said notice. The respondent herein also required the petition premises bona fide by way of additional accommodation under S. 10(3)(c) of the Act. Further, the petitioners herein are also committing act of waste and thereby materially impairing the value and utility of the building. But the petitioners herein did not send any reply to the said notice. The respondent herein also required the petition premises bona fide by way of additional accommodation under S. 10(3)(c) of the Act. Further, the petitioners herein are also committing act of waste and thereby materially impairing the value and utility of the building. Further, the tenants did not comply with the order passed under S.ll(4) of the Act by the Rent Controller. Therefore, the appeal filed by the tenants/petitioners herein before the Rent Control Appellate Authority against the main order passed in RCOP. No. 3702 of 1986 is not entertainable and the Rent Control Appellate Authority ought to have dismissed the same in limine . Further on the same basis, the revision fs also liable to be dismissed in limine. 5. I have heard the rival submissions. 6. The fact remains that the petitioners herein are in occupation of the ground floor of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-. According to he petitioners herein one Rajeswariammal is the owner of the premises. The respondent herein purchased the petition premises by a registered sale deed dated 18.8.1986. Thereafter he sent a notice to the petitioners herein dt. 2.10.1986 calling upon them to pay the arrears of rent as well as to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition premises, but the tenants did not send any reply to the said notice. According to the petitioners herein, Rajeswariammal is the landlady and the respondent herein is not their landlord. It remains to be seen that the said Rajeswariammal through her power of attorney agent sold the said premises to one Mr. G. Gopal, who in turn sold the said property to the respondent herein. After the petition premises was purchased under the registered sale deed by the respondent herein, it is not open to the petitioners herein to refuse to pay the rent to the respondent herein. According to the petitioners herein, they entertained a bona fide doubt with regard to the title over the petition premises since a suit was pending on the file of City Civil Court, Madras. It remains to be seen that O.S, No. 2742 of 1987, was filed by the respondent herein against Rajeswariammal for injunction restraining her from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. But that was also said to be withdrawn. It remains to be seen that O.S, No. 2742 of 1987, was filed by the respondent herein against Rajeswariammal for injunction restraining her from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. But that was also said to be withdrawn. Hence there is no bona fide? on the part of the tenants in denying the title of the landlord. According to the petitioners herein they were paying the rent to one Rajeswariammal, but there is no evidence on record to show that they paid the rent to the said Rajeswariammal. Admittedly, after the purchase of the petition premises, the petitioners herein did not pay the rent either to the respondent herein or to the said Rajeswariammal. Under these circumstances, I consider that the authorities below were correct in coming to the conclusion that there is relationship of landlord and the tenant between the respondent and the petitioners herein and the tenants committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petition period. 7. It remains to be seen that when the eviction proceedings was pending, the respondent herein filed a petition under S.ll(4) of the Act for a direction to the tenants to pay the arrears of rent. The Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit the rent of Rs. 4,200/- on or before 22.10.1987, but that order was not complied with. Therefore, the proceedings were terminated and eviction was ordered in the main petition on 23.10.1987. No appeal was filed against the order passed under S.ll(4) of the Act. According to the learned counsel for the landlord, without paying the arrears of rent as directed by the Rent Controller in his order u/s. 11 (4) of the Act, the appeal against the order passed in the main eviction petition ought not to have been entertained by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It was further pointed out that on the same reasoning the present revision is liable to be dismissed in limine . On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein submitted that the order passed under S.ll(4) of the Act has got merged with the order of eviction passed in the main eviction petition on 23.10.1987 and therefore no further appeal need to be filed against the order under S.ll(4) of the Act. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein submitted that the order passed under S.ll(4) of the Act has got merged with the order of eviction passed in the main eviction petition on 23.10.1987 and therefore no further appeal need to be filed against the order under S.ll(4) of the Act. 8. It remains to be seen that according to S.ll(1) of the Act, “No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under S. 10 shall be entitled to contest the application before the Controller under that Sec tion, or to prefer any appeal under S. 23 against any order made by the Controller on the application, unless he has paid or pays to the landlord, or deposits with the Controller or the Appellate Authority as the case may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of the building upto the date of payment of deposit, and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building until the termination of the proceedings before the Controller or the Appellate Authority., as the case may be.” There fore, the deposit of arrears of rent is a condition precedent for filing an appeal against the order of eviction. That was not done in this case. A similar question came up for consideration before this court in the case of Iqbal&Company by its Partner A. Mohammed Hussain v. Abdul Rahman 1982 MLJ 221 = 95 L.W. 245, wherein this court held as under; “Admittedly, at the time of preferring the appeal, the arrears had not been paid or deposited in terms of S.ll(1) of the Act. Hence the appeals themselves should not have been entertained, apart from the fact that the order passed on 22nd August, 1980, had worked out itself, by the appellate authority, when the appeals themselves were incompetent, now the question becomes academic whether there wasjustification for refusing to deposit the amount. This is because purely of the statutory provisions and one cannot import the general consideration of justice or equity in a case of this character. That is why I said that it makes bad law.” 9. This is because purely of the statutory provisions and one cannot import the general consideration of justice or equity in a case of this character. That is why I said that it makes bad law.” 9. Again this question came up for con sideration before this court in Kesavanaicker v. Sivagnana Mudaliar 1988 II MLJ 254, wherein this court held as under; “To confine the applicability of S. 7-A comparable to S.ll of the Act only to cases where there is an admission of the tenancy or there is a prior adjudication as regards tenancy would not, in my opinion, serve the object with which S. 11 of the Act has been enacted. The section enables the tenant to discharge the burden of arrears of rent as well as the payment of future rent and at the same time, secures the same to the landlord so that the landlord is not put to the necessity of taking steps for the recovery of the same during the pendency of the proceedings. If the relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed and on that footing an application under S. 11 of the Act is rejected and ultimately in the course of the main proceedings it is found that the relationship is that of a landlord and tenant and wilful default had been committed and the future rents had remained unpaid and meanwhile several years had rolled by, the legitimate claim of the landlord for rent might even become barred by time. In addition, the simple denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under the Act. If a person in possession of the premises is not the tenant, then the landlord will not be entitled to initiate proceedings for an order of eviction, against, him. Disputed questions of the relationship of landlord and tenant have also to be decided by the Rent Controller. If the Controller decides that there is no such relationship, then the proceeding has to terminate without deciding the main question of eviction; but if, on the other hand, it is found that the relationship is that of landlord and tenant, the further proceedings have to go on. If the Controller decides that there is no such relationship, then the proceeding has to terminate without deciding the main question of eviction; but if, on the other hand, it is found that the relationship is that of landlord and tenant, the further proceedings have to go on. Therefore, a mere denial of the relationship cannot oust the jurisdiction of the Authorities under the Act..” Therefore without paying or depositing the arrears of rent has ordered by the Rent Controller under S.ll(4) of Act, the appeal cannot be entertained 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire arrears of rent was deposited in court as per the direction given by this court in the revision. Therefore according to the learned counsel for petitioners order of eviction of the S.ll(4) has been complied with. The answer to this question is contained in a decision of this court rendered in Arputham v. Singaravelu Nadar & Sons Rep. By Partners 1988 II MLJ 260 = 1988-2-L.W/245, wherein while consider ing a contention of similar nature this court held as under; “It is also contended that the Appellate Authority is in error in confirming the order of eviction when the tenant had deposited the entire amount in the appellate court at the time when he filed the appeal. I do not agree with learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the petitioner failed to deposit as directed by the Rent Controller, an order under S. 11(4) would automatically follow and the Rent Controller made no error in passing that order. Consequently, the appellate authority was right in confirming that order.” 11. Therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the order passed in the main eviction petition is not entertainable without paying or depositing the arrears of rent as order under S. 11(4) of the Act, because the order passed under S. 11(4) of the Act is still in force. On the same ground the revision is also not competent. In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. Time for eviction two months.