AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.
C.R.P.(NPD) No. 3396 of 2007:
The Judgment in RCA. No. 41 of 2006 on the file of III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore is under challenge by the tenant in R.C.O.P.
No. 22 of 2004. The said RCA had arisen out an order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 22 of 2004 which was filed under Sections 11(3) and 11(4) of
the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ""the Act""). The learned Rent Controller, after due deliberations
on the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the landlord and the learned Counsel appearing for the tenant, has come to a
conclusion that even though according to the landlord monthly rent for the petition schedule building is Rs. 1700/-, the admitted rent, according to
the tenant is Rs. 1000/-, has directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of admitted rent of Rs. 1000/- from April 2002 to the credit of R.C.O.P.
No. 33 of 2004 giving four weeks time from the date of the order i.e., on 24.11.2005. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller, the
tenant has preferred an appeal in RCA No. 41 of 2006 challenging the order passed in I.A. No. 50 of 2004 in R.C.O.P. No. 22 of 2004 which
was filed under Sections 11(3) and 11(4) of the Act. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, after meticulously going through the orders of
the learned Rent Controller and also the averments in I.A. No. 50 of 2004 and the counter filed by the tenant therein, has come to a conclusion
that there is no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Rent Controller in the order passed in I.A. No. 50 of 2004 in R.C.O.P. No. 22
of 2004 had dismissed RCA No. 41 of 2006 thereby confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller in I.A. No. 50 of 2004 in R.C.O.P. No.
22 of 2004 which necessitated the tenant to prefer this revision petition
Admittedly the landlord and the tenant/revision petitioner are close relatives. Even though, the tenant would contend that there was no lease
agreement to show the agreed rent for the petition schedule premises, in the counter filed in I.A.No.50 of 2004 itself, he has admitted that he had
tendered the arrears of rent to the landlord in April 2002 at the rate of Rs. 1000/- p.m., which was refused to receive by the landlord. Only under
such circumstances, the learned Rent Controller has ordered in the application in I.A. No. 50 of 2004 filed under Sections 11(3) and 11(4) of the
Act directing the tenant to deposit the admitted rent of Rs. 1000/- p.m. from April 2002 to the credit of R.C.O.P. No. 33 of 2004 on the file of
District Munsif(Rent Controller) Mettupalayam.
The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relying on a decision reported in K.P. Janaki Ammal and 8 others Vs. K.
Badrinarayanaiah, would contend that the deposit of arrears of rent cannot be a precondition when the impugned order was under challenge. The
facts of the said case are that R.C.O.P. No. 2177 of 1985 was filed by the landlord before the Rent Controller, Madras u/s 4 of the Act. The
learned Rent Controller has fixed fair rent at Rs. 6335.00 per month. The tenant filed R.C.A.No.360 of 1988 questioning the correctness of the
above referred order. The landlord not satisfied with the quantum of fair rent has filed R.C.A. No. 464 of 1988. In the common Judgment filed by
the appellant in R.C.A. No. 464 of 1988, the fair rent was fixed as Rs. 7,479.00 per mensum. Thereafter the landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 681 of
1992 against the tenant seeking their eviction stating that they are guilty of wilful default in payment of rent.In the said rent control petition,the
landlord filed M.P. No. 879 of 1992 under Sections 11(3) and 11(4) of the Act to direct the tenant to pay the arrears of rent quantified at Rs.
3,36,869.22 at the rate of Rs. 7,479/- p.m. as fixed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in the fair rent proceedings. Only under such
circumstances, it has been held in the said ratio decidenti by the learned Judge of this Court that while fair rent proceedings in R.C.A. No. 464 of
1988 itself is under challenge, the rent Controller cannot pass an order in a subsequent R.C.O.P. No. 681 of 1992. In M.P. No. 879 of 1992
which was filed under Sections 11(3) and 11(4) of the Act directing the tenant to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 7479/-p.m., fixed by the
learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA. No. 464 of 1988. So the fact of the said ratio decidenti will not be applicable to the present
facts of the case because the learned Rent Controller in an application filed under Sections 11(3) and 11(4) of the Act in I.A.No.50 of 2004 in
R.C.O.P. No. 33 of 2004 has directed only arrears of admitted rent from April 2002 at the rate of Rs. 1000/- to be deposited to the credit of
R.C.O.P.No.33 of 2004.
The other ratio decidenti relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner G. Reghunathan v. K.V. Varghese (2006)1
L.W.209 will also not be applicable to the present facts of the case beause in the said case, the tenant took a room in the building belonging to the
respondent/landlord and executed an unregistered rent deed on 5.9.1988 for the purpose of conducting a gold and silver jewellary shop. As per
the rent deed, the term of the lease was 15 years. The rent payable was at Rs. 750/- p.m. A sum of Rs. 85,000/- was given to the landlord as
security which is liable to be returned to the tenant at the time when he vacates the room. Dispute arose between the landlord and the tenant since
the tenant failed to tender the rent from 5.10.1988. The landlord issued notice u/s 11(2) of the Act (Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act 1965) the landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 2 of 1990 before the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default and also
on the ground that the tenant had used the building for other purpose than to which it was let out. An order of evicition was passed u/s 11(2) of the
Act. It was contended by the tenant that he had deposited the entire rent during the pendency of the proceedings and on that score, he cannot be
evicted from the building which was not accepted by the learned Rent Controller and ordered eviction. The appeal was preferred by the tenant.
The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal which necessitated the tenant to prefer the revision u/s 20 of the Act. The
revision was dismissed. By way of SLP, the tenant moved the Honourable Apex Court. The relevant observation by the Honourable Apex Court
runs as follows:
We find that the Authorities below have not approached the question from the proper prospective. They have not given sufficient emphasis to the
statutory requirement of the effect being material and permanent. It is ""material and permanent"". The words are not disjunctive, like in some other
Acts. Here the landlord had not proved the material and permanent impairment in value or utility. One suspects that the value and utility are
enhanced. The landlords admits that he will get a higher rent if the room is again let out. We are, therefore, satisfied that interference is justified. We
hold that the landlord has failed to prove that the acts of the tenant constitute the user of the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce the
value or utility of the building materially and permanently and held that the order for eviction u/s 11(4)(ii) of the Act is not maintainable.
The facts in the above said dictum is entirely alien to the facts in the present case.
The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent relying on a decision reported in Maragathammal Vs. Kamalammal, contended that the order
passed by the learned Rent Controller under Sections 11(3) and 11(4) of the Act is quite legal and valid which was also confirmed by the learned
Rent Control Appellate Authority. The facts of the above said ratio decidenti are that before the Apex Court, the order of this Court in CRP. Nos.
1981 and 1982 of 2000 was challenged. The learned Rent Controller passed an order of eviction u/s 11 of the Act. The appellant has filed
R.C.O.P.No.162 of 1992 against the respondent for eviction on the ground of wilful default, demolition and reconstruction and also subletting.
According to the respondent, the monthly rent for the non residential portion is Rs. 650/- and according to the appellant, respondent failed to pay
the rent from March 1990 to 1997 apart from having sub let the premises. According to the respondent, the rents were paid regularly till June
1992 and the first appellant refused to receive the rents from the month of July 1992. According to the respondent,the requirement of demolition
and reconstruction was not bonafide. While the R.C.O.P. was pending, the first appellant filed an application in I.A. No. 523 of 1993 u/s 11 of the
Act directing the respondent to deposit the entire admitted arrears of rent into Court. The Rent Controller allowed the said I.A., after dismissing
the defence taken by the tenant and since the tenant has failed to deposit the arrears of rent, I.A. No. 523 of 1993 was allowed and tenant was
ordered to be vacated and handed over the possession of the building. As against the said order, the respondent/tenant preferred RCA Nos. 63 of
1997 and 96 of 1998. The appellate authority directed the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent from June 1992 to July 1997 which comes to
Rs. 39,650/- Both the appeals were disposed of by a common order. The revision before this Court preferred by the tenant ended against him.
When the order of this Court in Civil Revision petition was challenged before the Apex Court, the relevant observation made in the said appeal by
the Honourable Apex Court runs as follows:
We see no reason why the respondent lodged the schedule as late as on 21.11.1995 i.e., just the previous day prior to 22.11.1995 by which date
when she was directed to deposit the entire admitted arrears in Court u/s 11. The respondent could have lodged this schedule on the very next day
after the order dated 9.11.1995 i.e., on 10.11.1995 or within a day or two thereafter. We see no reason why she waited till the eve of
22.11.1995, which was the last date of depositing the entire rent in Court. It is admitted that the respondent-tenant has been deliberately avoiding
the payment of the rent as and when it fell due.
So it is made clear from the above said ratio decidenti that when the rent fell due from the tenant, in the application filed under Sections 11(3) and
11(4) of the Act by the landlord, an order, directing the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent, has been passed and if the said order was
not complied with then, further proceedings in R.C.O.P. is to be stopped and eviction is to be ordered. Both the Courts below have concurrently
held that since the tenant has failed to deposit the admitted arrears as per the order passed in I.A. No. 50 of 2004 in R.C.O.P. No. 22 of 2004 is
liable to be evicted. I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered concurrent order of the, learned Rent Control Appellate
Authority in RCA.No.41 of 2006.
C.R.P.(NPD) NO. 3615 of 2007:
The order passed in I.A. No. 261 of 1007 in I.A. No. 54 of 2007 in R.C.A. No. 41 of 2006 is under challenge before this Court in this revision
petition.
I.A. No. 261 of 2007 was filed to extend the stay already granted in I.A. No. 54 of 2007. I.A. No. 54 of 2007 was filed by the landlord to
stay the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 22 of 2004. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that in the petition filed under Sections 11(3) and
11(4) of the Act by the landlord in R.C.O.P. No. 22 of 2004, the learned Rent Controller inspite of the tenant''s failure to deposit the admitted rent
at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per mensum, has not passed an order of eviction as contemplated u/s 11(4) of the Act but was going on giving indefinite
adjournments. Under such circumstances, the learned Rent Controller is directed to pass orders in R.C.O.P. No. 22 of 2004 within a period of
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in lieu of the dismissal of C.R.P. NPD No. 3396 of 2007.
In fine, CRP NPD No. 3396 of 2007 is dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA No. 41
of 2006 on the file of III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. The learned Rent Controller is directed to pass order in R.C.O.P. No. 22 of
2004 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, with the above direction C.R.P. NPD No. 3615 is disposed of.