Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 411 (MAD)

V. Radhakrishnan v. V. Krishnamurthy

2000-04-08

S.S.SUBRAMANI

body2000
ORDER: Tenant in R.C.O.P.72 of 1997 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Vellore is the revision petitioner. 2. Landlord filed eviction petition and pending proceedings, he also moved an application under Sec.11(4) of the Act directing tenant to deposit the rent. 3. Rent Controller as per order dated 11.6.1999 directed tenant to deposit a sum of Rs.19,600 on or before 29.6.1999 and further held that in case the amount is not deposited further proceedings will be stopped and directed the case to be called on 30.6.1999. 4. Against the said order, tenant preferred appeal before Appellate Authority and the same was refused to be numbered by Appellate Authority for the following reasons: “Records perused. The appellant/ petitioner was the respondent in R.C.O.P.No.72 of 1997 in which the landlord has filed a petition in I.A.No.49 of 1997 under Sec.11(4) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The R.C.O.P. was filed in D.M.C., Vellore by the landlord seeking, eviction of the tenant/ appellant herein on the ground of wilful default. The lower Court has passed an order directing the tenant/ appellant herein to pay the arrears of rent to the landlord on or before 29.6.1999. The tenant/ appellant has not complied with the conditional order, but filed the appeal memorandum in this Court. As to the maintainability the petitioner has cited an authority in Mothabjandar Chettiar v. K.Ranganathan, 81 L.W. 383. In that authority it was stated”that the Court below were in error in coming to the conclusion that the tenants (respondent) were under no obligation in law to deposit the entire arrears due for the period, irrespective of limitation, as urged by the landlord. According to the authority the landlord was entitled for the rent arrears which were claimed by the tenant as time barred. There is no direction about the filing of appeal against the conditional order passed under Sec.11(4) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. In M.Y.Mohamed Ismail v. Sashi Sachidev, (1994)2 M.L.J. 511 , it was observed when an order was passed under Sec.11(4) of the Act without payment in pursuance of the order, appeal cannot be entertained by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner herein has not made the payment as ordered by the lower Court in I.A.No.49 of 1997 in R.C.O.P.No.72 of 1997 under Sec.11(4) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The petitioner herein has not made the payment as ordered by the lower Court in I.A.No.49 of 1997 in R.C.O.P.No.72 of 1997 under Sec.11(4) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Therefore, the appeal memorandum filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in the above said circumstances and this appeal memorandum is rejected accordingly.“ The said order is under challenge in this revision petition. 5. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, I do not think that the order of Appellate Authority is correct. 6. In Schwartz Dasan v. Devadoss, (1999)1 M.L.J. 740 , in paragraphs 11 and 12 it is held thus: ”11. Now, we will come back to Sec.11(4) of the Act. Sec.11(4) of the Act contemplates the payment of rent during the pendency of an application for eviction under Sec.10 of the Act. The restriction placed on the tenant is to prevent him to contest that application before the Rent Controller. Again the restriction on the tenant is only with reference to an order passed by the rent controller on that application. Here the words “any order made by the controller” is referable only to the application under Sec.10 of the Act and not to any miscellaneous or interlocutory applications. So, a close analysis of Sec.11 of the Act discloses that the inhibition or restriction placed upon the tenant is only with reference to his contesting the application under Sec.10 and an appeal which he prefers against such an order. It does not contemplates any order passed under Sec.11(3) of the Act. 12. When we come to the order to be passed under Sec.11(4) it is no doubt on the petition of eviction. But as I have already indicated the order passed under Sec.11(4) is only consequential but the order passed under Sec.11(4) cannot stand by itself. In all the cases when an order is passed under Sec.11(3), the main appeal is invariably against that order. Therefore, in my view when a tenant prefers an appeal against the order passed under Sec.11(3), there is no necessity for him to deposit the arrears." 7. In all the cases when an order is passed under Sec.11(3), the main appeal is invariably against that order. Therefore, in my view when a tenant prefers an appeal against the order passed under Sec.11(3), there is no necessity for him to deposit the arrears." 7. Similarly in K.P.Janaki Ammal and others v. K. Badrinarayanaiah, (1999)2 L.W. 102 , it is held thus: "....the question that arises for consideration in this revision was whether the tenants in the cases on hand, who had suffered an order under Sec.11(3) and (4) of 18 of 1960, at the hands of the Rent Controller, should deposit the amount as found due and ordered by the Rent Controller in the proceedings as a condition precedent before filing of the appeal. In other words, the question is whether the appeal filed by the tenants in such a case is maintainable or not in the absence of such deposit? It was contended for petitioners- tenant that the statutory requirement of depositing the amount as found due and ordered by the Rent Controller will only apply to a case where the tenant is contesting the proceeding taken in evicting against him under Sec.10 of the Act and to an Appeal filed by the tenant against an order of eviction passed under Sec.10 of the Act and that to no other order passed under the other provisions of the Rent Act, the statutory requirement as provided for under Sec.11 of the Rent Act, would be attracted. In other words, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order challenged before the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.405 of 1993 being an order under Sec.11(3) and (4) of the Rent Act, in an appeal filed against that order, the tenant is not under a legal obligation to deposit any money much less the amount as determined by the Rent Controller in that application." 8. In view of the above decisions, the order of Appellate Authority is set aside and Appellate Authority is directed to register the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.12363 of 1999 is closed.