Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3525 (MAD)

R. Vijaya v. K. Munusamy

2012-08-08

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 05.12.2008 passed in I.A.No.6 of 2007 in RCA No.1 of 2006 by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. A summation and summarisation of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus: (i) The respondents herein five in number filed RCOP as against the revision petitioner/Vijaya, invoking Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the ground of wilful default in paying rent. (ii) The petition was resisted by the tenant. (iii) During enquiry, on the side of the petitioners in RCOP P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. The respondent/Vijaya examined herself as R.W.1 along with R.W.2 and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. (iv) Ultimately the Rent Controller ordered eviction. (v) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of eviction, RCA No.1 of 2006 was filed by Vijaya. (vi) Pending RCA, I.A.No.6 of 2007 was filed under Section 11(1) and 11(4) of the Act, on the main ground that despite the Rent Controller having given a finding that there was landlord and tenant relationship between the respondents herein and the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner herein did not pay or deposit the rent. The learned appellate authority passed an order directing the revision petitioner to deposit arrears of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs only) in the Court with the stipulation that such deposited amount should not be allowed to be withdrawn till the disposal of RCA. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of the Rent Controller appellate authority, this revision has been focussed on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision would pyramid his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: (a) The appellate authority failed to take note of the fact that absolutely there was no iota or shred, shard or miniscule extent of evidence to establish that there was landlord and tenant relationship between the respondents herein and the revision petitioner. In the absence of such evidence, the appellate authority had no jurisdiction at all to mandate the revision petitioner to deposit the alleged arrears. (b) The learned counsel for the petitioner also would place reliance on an agreement which emerged between the revision petitioner and the respondents. In the absence of such evidence, the appellate authority had no jurisdiction at all to mandate the revision petitioner to deposit the alleged arrears. (b) The learned counsel for the petitioner also would place reliance on an agreement which emerged between the revision petitioner and the respondents. (c) There are certain unsolved questions that persist in the relationship between the revision petitioner herein as a seller of the demised premises and the respondents as purchasers. (d) Simply suppressing the material facts the RCOP was filed, instead of filing the suit for recovery of possession. Even in such an eventuality, the revision petitioner as the original owner of the suit property is entitled to take all defences to show that the respondents herein did not pay the sale consideration. (e) In view of the orders passed by this Court, so far, the revision petitioner deposited totally a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) towards arrears of rent. 5. In a bid to extirpate and torpedo the arguments as put forth on the side of the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents, would advance his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: (a) The learned Rent Controller/appellate authority taking into consideration the order passed by the Rent Controller mandated that the revision petitioner/tenant should deposit the rent. (b) Since a prima facie case has already been made out by the respondents herein, the lower authority ordered so, warranting no interference in the revision. (c) The main RCA as against the order of RCOP is pending and suitable direction might be given by this Court for early disposal of RCA, which would put an end to the controversy. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is perversity or illegality in the order passed by the appellate authority in mandating the revision petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards arrears? 7. At the outset itself I would like to refer to the following decisions of this Court. 8. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is perversity or illegality in the order passed by the appellate authority in mandating the revision petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) towards arrears? 7. At the outset itself I would like to refer to the following decisions of this Court. 8. A plain running of the eye over those decisions would exemplify and demonstrate that despite the respondent in the RCOP raising the contention that there was no landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, as stated above, it has to be seen in this case as to whether there existed any prima facie proof of such landlord and tenant relationship between the respondents and the revision petitioner herein. 9. The learned Rent Controller did not invoke Section 11 of the Act at all. Straight-away he proceeded to probe into the main RCOP and ultimately ordered eviction by giving a finding that there existed landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. As against the said order, RCA was filed. Pendente lite of the RCA, an application was filed by the respondents herein as landlords invoking Section 11 of the Act which would contemplate that pending appeal also a tenant is expected to deposit the arrears. 10. Now the main question arises as to whether the RCOP order could be taken as prima facie proof for invoking Section 11 of the Act. In my considered opinion so far this case is concerned, the Rent Controller in RCOP, placed reliance on the registered sale deed which emerged between the petitioner and the respondents herein and also relied upon the oral and other evidence placed before the Court. No doubt, the respondent in the RCOP did not agree with such findings of the landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents and therefore appeal was filed. 11. The appellant who is the revision petitioner herein cannot perpetuate her stand ignoring the prima facie finding against her. The prima facie case is different from proving a case in the way known to law. No doubt the revision petitioner placed reliance on Ex.B7, which has to be scruitinised strictly in the RCA. But pending that, the appellant therein cannot have carte blanche in her favour and simply refrain from depositing the rent even though law mandates so. The prima facie case is different from proving a case in the way known to law. No doubt the revision petitioner placed reliance on Ex.B7, which has to be scruitinised strictly in the RCA. But pending that, the appellant therein cannot have carte blanche in her favour and simply refrain from depositing the rent even though law mandates so. If according to the stand of the revision petitioner the rent could be paid only if at all there is a conclusive finding as against her, then the mandates as found envisaged and embedded in Section 11 of the Act, would be rendered in nugatory. Orders passed under Section 11 of the Act is interim in nature, so to say, pending the final decision in the main proceedings, the tenant is expected to deposit rent. 12. As such, this Court cannot countenance and uphold the argument of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that in view of the non attainment of finality in the finding relating to landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioners and the respondent in the RCOP, the question of deposit would not rise. In view of the prima facie finding given by the Rent controller, the appellant, who is also the revision petitioner herein, is bound to deposit the arrears pending disposal of the RCA. However, whatever amount that was deposited or that would be deposited by the revision petitioner herein, cannot straightway be taken by the respondents herein without the order of this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly I could see no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the appellate authority 13. By way of disambiguating the ambiguity, if any, I would like to dispel the apprehension in the mind of the revision petitioner that simply because the revision petitioner was mandated to deposit the rents, it cannot be made use of by the respondents herein to argue that the revision petitioner impliedly accepted the landlord and tenant relationship as pleaded by the respondents herein. De hors the orders passed under Section 11 of the Act as well as the orders passed by this Court relating to deposit of rent, the appellate authority who is seized of the RCA is expected to decide the matter on merits preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. De hors the orders passed under Section 11 of the Act as well as the orders passed by this Court relating to deposit of rent, the appellate authority who is seized of the RCA is expected to decide the matter on merits preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. VIJAYAN CASE DECISIONS Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.