Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 927 (MAD)

Ansar v. V. C. Ravi

2007-03-14

R.BANUMATHI

body2007
Judgment :- Common Order: Aggrieved by the Order allowing Sec.11(3) and 11(4) applications and consequentially ordering eviction in RCOP, Tenant has preferred these revisions. 2. These revisions arise on the following set of facts:- 1. Main R.C.O.P.No.45/2005 has been filed by the Respondent/landlord for eviction of Petitioner/Tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent under Section 10(2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960, [for short, the Act]. Pending RCOP, landlord filed M.P.No.200/2005 under Ss.11(3) and (4) of the Act to direct the Tenant to deposit the arrears of rent from August, 2004 to February, 2005 at Rs.2,500 p.m. and on failure, to stop all further proceedings in RCOP and to pass consequential Order of eviction of the Tenant. On 28.04.2005, Rent Controller has directed Petitioner to pay rental dues from August, 2004 to March 2005, amounting to Rs.20,000/-, on or before 09.06.2005 [monthly rent @ Rs.2,500/-p.m.]. As against that Order, Tenant has preferred R.C.A.No.626/2005. Confirming the Order of Rent Controller, Appellate Authority directed the Tenant to pay to the landlord directly, a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards rental dues from August, 2004, till November, 2005 on or before 212. 2005. The Appellate Authority directed the parties to appear before the Rent Controller on 30.12.2005. 2. 2. Instead of paying rental dues of Rs.40,000/-directly to the landlord, Tenant has deposited the sum of Rs.40,000/- into Court on 212. 2005. 2. 3. As against the Order in R.C.A.No.626/2005, Tenant has preferred C.R.P.No.195/2006. That CRP was ordered permitting Tenant to withdraw the amount of Rs.40,000/- deposited to the credit of R.C.O.P.No.45/2005 and to pay directly to the landlord within a period of two weeks. Tenant was also directed to pay future monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- directly to the landlord on or before 10th of every succeeding month. As against that Order passed in C.R.P.No.195/2006, Tenant has preferred S.L.P. (Civil) No.8950/2006 before the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed on 05.06.2006. Only thereafter, Tenant has paid the amount of Rs.40,000/-to the landlord on 08.06.2006. 2. 4. Holding it as non-compliance of conditional Order in M.P.No.200/2005, Rent Controller dismissed that application and stopped all further proceedings and ordered eviction. Against the consequential Order of stopping all further proceedings and allowing M.P.No.200/2005, Tenant has preferred R.C.A.Nos.61 and 62 of 2006. 2. 5. Only thereafter, Tenant has paid the amount of Rs.40,000/-to the landlord on 08.06.2006. 2. 4. Holding it as non-compliance of conditional Order in M.P.No.200/2005, Rent Controller dismissed that application and stopped all further proceedings and ordered eviction. Against the consequential Order of stopping all further proceedings and allowing M.P.No.200/2005, Tenant has preferred R.C.A.Nos.61 and 62 of 2006. 2. 5. After careful consideration of the matter, by an elaborate Order, Appellate Authority has held that payment into Court is not in compliance with the Order passed by the High Court in C.R.P.No.195/2006 and confirmed the order of Rent Controller. 3. Assailing the impugned Order in M.P.No.200/2005 and the consequential Order of eviction, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that when Court has accepted the deposit, Order of Court was properly complied with. It was further submitted that in view of the pending suits between the Respondent and erstwhile landlord Pachiammal, Tenant has already paid rent to Pachiammal. Drawing attention of the Court to Sec.2(6), it was submitted that landlord includes erstwhile landlord and when Pachiammal continues to be the landlord, it cannot be said that deposit of amount, rental dues into the Court would amount to non-compliance of Court Order. The learned Counsel also submitted that Tenant has been pursuing remedy in various fora and time taken by him ought to have been condoned as per Sec.14 of the Limitation Act. .4. Drawing attention of the Court to various dates and events, the learned Counsel for the landlord has submitted that when rent was ordered to be paid to the landlord in a particular manner, Tenant ought to have complied with the same as directed by the Court. It was also submitted that after Order was passed by the High Court in C.R.P.No.195/ 2006, instead of complying with the same, Tenant has withdrawn the amount and kept it with himself and it was rightly held to be non-compliance of the Court Order. 5. The point to be resolved is whether deposit into Court on 212. 2005 would amount to compliance of Order in M.P.No.200/2005 and R.C.A.No.626/2005. 6. 5. The point to be resolved is whether deposit into Court on 212. 2005 would amount to compliance of Order in M.P.No.200/2005 and R.C.A.No.626/2005. 6. Sec.11(1) is to the effect that no Tenant against whom an application has been made by a landlord shall be entitled to contest the application before the Controller on the application unless he has paid or pays to the landlord or deposits with the Controller or Appellate Authorities 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 deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect to the building until the termination of the proceedings before the Controller or the Appellate Authority. 7. Thus in the Act, a special machinery has been provided to deal with non-payment to rent during the pendency of Rent Control proceedings. When the conditional Order passed under Sec.11(4) is not complied with, Order of eviction follows and that was the very purpose of Sec.11(4) of the Act. Non-compliance of conditional Order under Sec.11(4) will entile eviction. 8. Right from filing of Petition, Revision Petitioner/ Tenant did not have propensity to pay the rental dues and comply with the conditional Order. Demonstrably, there has been deliberate disregard or bypassing the mode of payment ordered by the Court. At the time of filing R.C.A.No.625/ 2005, Tenant has not complied with the Order made in M.P.No. 200/2005. Filing of appeal would never be a sufficient cause for noncompliance of the Order of the Rent Controller in M.P.No.200/2005. In R.C.A.No.625/2005, Appellate Authority has directed the Tenant to pay to the landlord directly a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards rental dues. Deviating from the Order of Appellate Authority, Tenant has deposited a sum of Rs.40,000/-into Court on 212. 2005 and this is a deliberate deviation from the direction of the Court. .9. In C.R.P.No.195/2006, High Court has directed the Tenant to withdraw Rs.40,000/-and pay directly to the landlord and also to promptly pay rent of every subsequent months before 10th of succeeding month. The Tenant has not complied with that Order also; but has preferred S.L.P.No. 8950/2006, which was dismissed on 05.06.2006. this Court is not expressing any opinion regarding the right of the Tenant in preferring Special Leave Petition. But the conduct of the Tenant is relevant to be taken note of. The Tenant has not complied with that Order also; but has preferred S.L.P.No. 8950/2006, which was dismissed on 05.06.2006. this Court is not expressing any opinion regarding the right of the Tenant in preferring Special Leave Petition. But the conduct of the Tenant is relevant to be taken note of. The Tenant has withdrawn Rs.40,000/-deposited into Court and kept it with himself. Tenant has neither paid the amount to the landlord nor allowed the amount to be in deposit with the Court. Till the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, Tenant has kept the amount with him. Tenant must have either complied with the direction of the High Court in CRP, or at least must have allowed the amount to be in Court deposit. It is a clear case of deliberate intention in not complying with the Order of High Court. 10. Laying emphasis upon the words "pays to the landlord or deposits with the Controller or Appellate Authority, as the case may be", the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/ Tenant has contended that the rental dues could either be paid to the landlord or deposited with the Controller or Appellate Authority and adopting any one mode would be sufficient compliance of Sec.11. It was further contended that Rent Control legislation is a beneficial legislation and Courts will have to take a view to defend the object and purpose of the legislation. It is no doubt true that Rent Control Act is beneficial legislation and by adopting a strict approach, Tenant cannot be thrown out. But Sec.11(2) mandates that deposit of rent under Sub Sec.(1) shall be made within time and in the manner prescribed. As per Sec.11(2), compliance with the direction of the Courts Order is mandatory. When Court has prescribed payment of rent in a particular manner, the litigant is duty bound to comply with it in the manner prescribed by the Court. Tenant could have very well paid the amount directly to the landlord and complied with the Order of the Court at least by paying the amount directly to the landlord with the caption "without prejudice". Even that was not done; but the Tenant has chosen to fight out the matter upto the Supreme Court. .11. Tenant could have very well paid the amount directly to the landlord and complied with the Order of the Court at least by paying the amount directly to the landlord with the caption "without prejudice". Even that was not done; but the Tenant has chosen to fight out the matter upto the Supreme Court. .11. Onbehalf of the Revision Petitioner, learned Counsel has submitted that in view of two suits pending between the Respondent and erstwhile owner Pachiammal, Petitioner/Tenant had already paid the rent to Pachiammal and there is no noncompliance. Pachiammal is said to have filed C.S.No.644/2005 on the file of this Court, for declaration that the Sale Deed executed in favour of Respondent/landlord is null and void. The Respondent is said to have filed C.S.No.658/2005 on the file of this Court for taking delivery of possession of the first floor. Pointing out pendency of suits, onbehalf of the Tenant, it was contended that Petitioner has already paid rent to Pachiammal. Contention that Petitioner was having doubt as to whom the rent is to be paid cannot be countenanced. As observed by the Appellate Authority, if really the Petitioner/Tenant had any such doubt, Petitioner could have very well filed Petition under Sec.9 of the Act. But that was not done. 12. Subsequent conduct of the Tenant is also to be noted. To be within protection of the provision, Tenant must not only pay all the arrears due from him, but he must also continue to pay or tender the rent regularly. In paragraph No.11 of its Order, Appellate Authority has pointed out the irregularity in payment of rent after filing of the Petition. It is seen from the records that only on 08.06.2006, Tenant has paid Rs.40,000/-towards the rent payable till November, 2005. For the month of December, 2005, January and February, 2006, rents were paid in M.P.No. 47/2006 by cheque dated 20.11.2006. It is enjoined upon Tenant to regularly pay rent during pending proceedings. Taking note of the conduct of the Tenant in not being regular in payment of rent and non-compliance of the Courts Order, Rent Controller and Appellate Authority have rightly allowed the Petition filed under Sec.11(3) and (4) and passed consequential Order of eviction. Concurrent findings of the authorities below does not suffer from any perversity or impropriety, warranting interference, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Sec.25 of the Act. 13. Concurrent findings of the authorities below does not suffer from any perversity or impropriety, warranting interference, exercising revisional jurisdiction under Sec.25 of the Act. 13. The Order of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.61/ 2006, VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai is confirmed and these Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1/2007 is also dismissed. 14. At the time when Order was passed, learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner requested time for vacating, stating that some machineries are embedded and that Revision Petitioner requires time for vacating. In consideration of submissions made on behalf of the Revision Petitioner, nine months time is granted for vacating and handing over vacant possession subject to the condition that the Revision Petitioner should file an affidavit of undertaking within a period of two weeks from the date of this Order.