V. S. Ranganathan vs S. Pandian

K. Ravichandra Babu, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved against the order made in RCA No. 238 of 2012 on the file of VIII Small Causes Court Judge/ Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chennai in confirming the order dated 27.02.2012 made in M.P. No. 499 of 2010 in RCOP No. 521 of 2009 by the Rent Controller and the XII Small Causes Court Judge, Chennai, in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 11(3) & (4) of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 seeking for a direction to the respondents to deposit the arrears of rent.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed before this Court.

It is seen that the petitioner claiming to be the landlord of the petition premises, filed the above Rent Control Original Petition seeking for eviction of the respondents therein, claiming them as tenants in respect of the said premises. Pending disposal of the RCOP, the petitioner filed the above M.P seeking for a direction to the tenants to deposit the entire arrears of rent, by contending that the respondents have committed default in payment of rent even after filing of the Rent Control Original Petition.

Per contra, it is the contention of the respondents that they are not the tenants in respect of the petitioner mentioned properties and there is no jural relationship of landlord- tenant exist between the parties. The learned Rent Controller, after considering the rival submissions of the parties and taking note of the specific objections raised by the respondents that there is no relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties, dismissed the application on the ground that the same is not maintainable once the jural relationship between the parties is denied and disputed and until such relationship is established the petitioner cannot maintain such application. It is also further pointed out that such issue, as to whether the relationship of the landlord and tenant exists between the parties, has to be considered and decided only after conducting a trial. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Rent Controller and the XII Small Causes Court Judge, Chennai, who in turn confirmed the order of the Rent Controller.

On careful perusal of the pleadings of the respective parties and the findings rendered by the court below, I am of the view that the application seeking for deposit of arrears of rent under Section 11(3) of the Rent Control Act can be considered and decided on merits, only when the jural relationship between the parties is admitted by the parties. Otherwise the question of considering the 11(3) Application on merits would not arise. Here, in this case the respondents are disputing the relationship by specifically saying that they are not the tenants in respect of the petition mentioned properties and they specifically deny the title in respect of super structure. Therefore, it is for the Rent Controller to go into such question and decide the same, only after conducting trial. Till then the present application under Section 11(3) is not maintainable.

Therefore, I find that the orders passed by the court below do not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed. No costs.

However, without expressing any view on the merits and contentions raised by the respective parties in respect of their rival claim including the jural relationship between them, a direction is given to the learned Rent Controller to take up the RCOP No. 521 of 2009 and dispose of the same on merits, in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the learned Rent Controller shall consider the matter and decide the same without getting influenced by any of the observations made in the earlier orders passed in M.P. No. 499 of 2010 and RCA No. 238 of 2012 as well as the order passed by this Court in this Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly, the Rent Controller shall dispose of the Rent Control Original Petition on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.