Sri Rajagopalaswami Sooriya Prabai Mandahapadi Ahamadiyar Sangam, Mannargudi vs R. Balakrishnan

M.N. Chandurkar, C.J.—This revision petition filed by the landlord-Sangam, which is a trust and relates to the trust property in the

occupation of the tenant has, in my view, to be dismissed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Sundaram Pillai and Others Vs. `R.

Pattabiraman and Others, . The controversy between the parties related to arrears of rent for the period 1.3.1979 to 29.2.1980. Having regard to

the view, which I am inclined to take in this revision petition it does not become necessary to go into the details of the findings of both the courts

below, in respect of the arrears. It is sufficient to state that according to the tenant, who claims to be a well-to-do person, he is in occupation of the

premises in question used for non-residential purposes at the rate of Rs. 60 per mensem. He used to pay the rent annually in accordance with the

arrangement arrived at with the original trustees because the amount of rent payable by the tenant was used for the purposes of Utsavam which

was to be held in March of each year. Admittedly for the years 1977 to 1979, that is, up to 28.2.1979, the rent has been deposited in lump sum in

the account of the trust in the Bank by the tenant directly. However, according to the tenant, the Bank declined to accept the deposit when he went

there in March 1979 at the instance of the present petitioner. Thereafter, according to him, he sent a money order on 28-2-1980, for the entire

amount of rent for the period 1-3-1979 to 29-2-1980. It is important to point out that both the landlord and the tenant are in the same place at

Mannargudi. Normally, therefore, a money order sent on 28-12-1980 from Mannargudi should have been tendered to the addressee who is in the

same place in a couple of days time. The money order, however, came to be refused on 8-3-1980 and in the meantime a petition for eviction came

to be filed on 4-3-1980.

The defence of the tenant to the claim of the landlord-trust represented though the Managing trustee-the original Managing trustee is no more

and the trust is now managed by the new Managing trustee was that there was no default at all, in as much as the arrangement had been arrived at

between the parties with the former Managing trustee for payment of rent in lump sums and that since earlier the landlord by their conduct had

acquiesced in such payments and never made a grievance of it, it was not open to the landlord suddenly to turn round and say that the tenant is in

default, because the rent is not paid every month.

The Rent Controller held that the story of the tenant that he was paying the rent, annually could not be accepted because the deposits made in

the Bank showed no annual payment, but payment in lump sums for the period of certain months at a time. The Rent Controller therefore, found

the tenant to be a willful defaulter. The appellate Authority took the view that the conduct of the landlord showed that on some pretext or other the

landlord was interested in evicting the tenant. The Appellate Authority accepted the story of the tenant that the landlord had never raised any

protest against the mode of payment by depositing the amount in the Bank in lump sums. Though a specific finding does not seem to have been

recorded by the Appellate Authority that the Bank had refused to accept the deposit, after March 1979 at the instance of the landlord, he

proceeded on the footing that this contention of the tenant was correct and held that the entire arrears of rent was sent on 28-2-1980 even before

the tenant came to know about the proceedings to be taken against him by the landlord. Consequently, the Appellate Authority held that the tenant

cannot be held to be guilty of willful default in the matter of payment of rent nor of negligence. The appellate Authority, therefore allowed the

appear. Hence, the revision petition by the landlord. In this revision petition it is argued on behalf of the landlord that the case of the tenant in the

written statement that rent was paid annually having been held to be disproved by the fact that rent was in fact never deposited annually, it should

have been held that the tenant was a willful defaulter. With regard to the reliance placed on behalf of the tenant on the decision in S. Sundaram

Pillai and Others Vs. `R. Pattabiraman and Others, cited supra, the learned counsel for the landlord contended that the ratio of S. Sundaram Pillai

and Others Vs. `R. Pattabiraman and Others, does not apply to the facts of the case because in that case, rent was accepted by the landlord even

before the proceedings were taken. In the instant case, according to the learned counsel the rent for the period in question was sent by money

order which was refused only on 8-3-1980, and, therefore, no infirmity is created in the petition which was already filed in 4-3-1980. Now it

appears to me that having regard to the decision in Sundaram''s case1, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the claim as to whether in the

circumstances of this case, the non-payment of rent for each month should be held to be willful default. There does appear to be an arrangement

between the parties to which the landlord never protested by which the tenant was not required to pay the rent every month. Apart from that, what

is important in the present case, is that the entire rent has been sent by money order on 28-2-1980. The petition was filed on 4-3-1980, that is,

after five days after the rent was remitted. Having regard to the normal course of events, the money order should have been or would have been

tendered to the landlord within a couple of days of 28-2-1980. In any case, the amount of rent was out of the hands of the tenant and it should,

therefore, have been normally received by the landlord before 4-3-1980. In Sundaram''s case,1 the Supreme Court has taken the view that if the

landlord has received the entire arrears of rent before the filing of the suit, then there was no cause of action for filing a suit for an eviction on the

basis of past conduct of the tenant. The ratio of the decision will equally apply, in my view, to the facts of the present case, on the footing that the

amount having been already sent, the tenant must be taken to have performed his part of the duty and any delay on the part of the postal agency

cannot deprive the tenant of the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Sundaram Pillai and Others Vs. `R. Pattabiraman and Others, , if having

regard to the normal course, of events, the money order should have been tendered to the landlord before the date on which the petition was filed.

We have verified from the calendar that on 28-2-1980 was a working day. The calendar shows that day was a Thursday. In this view, of the

matter, it does not become necessary to go into any other aspects of the case, on this ground alone, in my view, the revision petition is liable to be

dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to casts.