Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2431 (MAD)

G. Lalitha v. Inayathullah

2013-07-12

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
JUDGMENT :- 1. The tenant is the revision petitioner in both the civil revision petitions. C.R.P.No.2036 of 2009 arises against an order made under section 11(4) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. C.R.P.No.4518 of 2012 arises against an order of eviction passed in R.C.O.P.No.1642 of 1999. 2. The respondents/landlords filed R.C.O.P.No.1642 of 1999 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Chennai against the petitioner for eviction on the ground of willful default. The case of the landlords is that the petitioner/tenant had defaulted in payment of rent to the tune of Rs.63,384/- till 30.06.1999 in respect of the petition mentioned property let out on a monthly rent of Rs.592/-. The landlords, pending disposal of the eviction petition, filed an application under section 11(4) of the said Act in M.P.No.395 of 2000 seeking for a direction to the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs.63,384/- and in the event of her failure, to pass an order of eviction from the petition premises. 3. The learned Rent Controller by his order dated 29.01.2001 directed the petitioner/tenant to pay a sum of Rs.63,384/- as the rental arrears upto 30.06.1999 and the subsequent months rent at the rate of Rs.592/- on or before 28.02.2001 by specifically observing that all further proceedings will be stopped and eviction order would be passed if no such payment was made. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed on 01.03.2001. It is seen that on 01.03.2001, when the matter was listed before the learned Rent Controller, the tenant has not paid the said sum within the time stipulated and taking note of such fact, the learned Rent Controller passed an order of eviction in R.C.O.P. No.1642 of 1999. The aggrieved tenant challenged both the orders before the Appellate Authority. By a common judgment dated 07.01.2009, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeals filed by the tenant and confirmed the orders of the learned Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the same, the present civil revision petitions are filed by the petitioner/tenant as stated supra. 4. The aggrieved tenant challenged both the orders before the Appellate Authority. By a common judgment dated 07.01.2009, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeals filed by the tenant and confirmed the orders of the learned Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the same, the present civil revision petitions are filed by the petitioner/tenant as stated supra. 4. Mr.G.Appavu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this Court at the time of admitting these civil revision petitions and granting interim stay, imposed a condition to deposit the sum of Rs.63,000/- towards rental arrears to the credit of R.C.O.P.No.1642 of 1999 within a period of one week by an order dated 24.07.2009 and the petitioner had complied with the said order within the time stipulated therein. Thus, the learned counsel contended that such compliance of the condition imposed in the interim order has to be construed as compliance of the order made under section 11(4) and consequently, the orders passed by the court below have to be set aside and the petitioners should be given a chance to contest the matter on merits. He also submitted that the default on the part of the counsel for the petitioner before the Rent Controller in not appearing on 29.01.2001 when the M.P.No.385/2000 was taken up for hearing, cannot be put against the petitioner/tenant to pass an order of eviction. 5. Per contra, Mrs. Hema Sampath, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords submitted that the petitioner having failed to comply with the order passed under section 11(4) cannot have any indulgence before this Court, as such failure on the part of the tenant had automatically resulted in passing an order of eviction in the main R.C.O.P. The conduct of the tenant being willful, the order of eviction passed on the ground of willful default cannot be found fault with. He also submitted that the amount of Rs.63,000/- deposited by the tenant in pursuant of the interim order passed by this Court is not representing the entire arrears of rent and in fact, even as on 31.05.2006, still an amount of Rs.34,611/- was due and not paid. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the said submission submitted that the petitioner/tenant is periodically depositing the rent in the landlord's bank account and therefore, the tenant cannot be found fault with. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 8. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the said submission submitted that the petitioner/tenant is periodically depositing the rent in the landlord's bank account and therefore, the tenant cannot be found fault with. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 8. Here is a case where the landlords have filed an application under section 10(2)(i) of the Tamilnadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, seeking for eviction of the petitioner/tenant by contending that she had committed willful default in paying the rent till 30.06.1999 totalling a sum of Rs.63,384/- being the entire arrears as on the date of filing the petition. It is also seen that the rent payable by the tenant per month is only Rs.592/-. Considering the quantum of the monthly rent and considering the quantum of the arrears of the rent as claimed by the landlords, it could be seen that the tenant had not paid the rent continuously for a long time. However, when an order was passed under section 11(4) in M.P.No.395 of 2000 on 29.01.2001 directing the tenant to pay the rent on or before 28.02.2001, the tenant has not paid the same within the time stipulated and consequently, the learned Rent Controller taking note of such failure on the part of the tenant, in complying with the order made under section 11(4), passed the consequential order of eviction in the main R.C.O.P. 9. I perused the order passed by the learned Rent Controller dated 29.01.2001 passed in M.P.No.395 of 2000. He has taken note of the fact that the fair rent was fixed by the court at Rs.592/- with effect from 20.10.1986. The tenant filed an appeal against the said order and the same was also dismissed for default on 03.04.1998. Thus, even after dismissal of the R.C.A., the tenant has not paid the arrears. When an opportunity was given to the petitioner under section 11(4) to pay the rent within the time stipulated, he seized to utilise the opportunity and on the other hand, allowed an order of eviction to be passed against him. If there is no compliance of order passed under section 11(2), the Act contemplates that the consequential order of eviction is automatic under section 11(4) and therefore, we cannot find fault with the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller. If there is no compliance of order passed under section 11(2), the Act contemplates that the consequential order of eviction is automatic under section 11(4) and therefore, we cannot find fault with the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority also concurred with the finding of the learned Rent Controller and rejected both the appeals. 10. No doubt, while granting interim stay in one of this civil revision petition in C.R.P.No.2036/2009 dated 24.07.2009, this Court has directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.63,000/- towards the rental arrears to the credit of R.C.O.P. and it is also stated that the petitioner has deposited the said sum. In my considered view, such order being an interim in nature cannot be taken to mean that this court cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the court below. Equally, it cannot be said that consequential payment or deposit of such amount would have to be construed as compliance of an order made under section 11(4), especially under the circumstances that failure to comply with the said order, had already resulted in passing an order of eviction. Conditional interim reliefs are being granted by the courts, during the pendency of proceedings, only to protect the interest of the other side. Such imposing of conditions and consequential compliance of the same cannot be construed or taken to mean that the court which granted the conditional relief has also accepted the case of such party who obtained such interim relief. Needless to say that any interim order granted is always subject to the final order to be passed in the main petition. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the fault of the counsel in not appearing before the court cannot be put against the client and he cannot be penalised. He relied on a decision of the Apex Court in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1400, RAFIQ AND ANOTHER v. MUNSHILAL AND ANOTHER. 12. No doubt, it is true that the parties should not be made to suffer for the fault of their counsel. But, here in this case, the learned Rent Controller has not ordered the application filed under section 11(4) as an exparte order and on the other hand, he has taken note of other circumstances viz. 12. No doubt, it is true that the parties should not be made to suffer for the fault of their counsel. But, here in this case, the learned Rent Controller has not ordered the application filed under section 11(4) as an exparte order and on the other hand, he has taken note of other circumstances viz. Order passed in the fair rent application in the year 1986 and dismissal of the appeal filed by the tenant thereafter. The learned Rent Controller has also taken note of the stand taken by the tenant in the counter by specifically observing that the tenant agreed to pay the enhanced rent. Whatever the contentions may be, when the order passed is not an exparte order only on the reason of the counsel's non appearance, I find that the decision relied on by the learned counsel is not going to help him in any manner. 13. Therefore, I am of the firm view that the tenant having failed to comply with the order passed under section 11(4) and having failed to pay the arrears of rent commencing from the month of October 1986, thus totaling a sum of Rs.63,384/- on the date of filing of the R.C.O.P that too, for the monthly rent of Rs.592/-, there is no bonafide on the part of the tenant. Accordingly, I find that the orders passed by the courts below, concurrently, do not require any interference in these civil revision petitions. Accordingly, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally prays for granting some time to vacate the premises. The petitioner is granted three months time to vacate and hand over the vacant possession to the landlords.