KESAVA NAICKER Vs. SIVAGNANA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The respondent16dlord 'filed an application under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for an order of eviction against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has committed willful default, in the payment of the rents from June 1976, up to May, 1977. According to the respondent, the premises in the occupation of the petitioner had been let to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 16 and the petitioner had not paid rents from June 1976 to May 1977, for a period of 12 months amounting to Rs. 192, and that such nonpayment was willful. In addition, the respondent also claimed that the premises in the occupation of the petitioner was originally let out for nonresidential purposes viz. to carry on the business in tailoring but that the premises had been converted into a living room. The respondent had further stated that since Ins wife died, he has been collecting the rents and he is the landlord as well as the heir of his wife and therefore, he is entitled to maintain the application for eviction.

(2.) The petitioner herein resisted the application contending that he is a tenant under one Mrs. Shanmughavalli and denied that he was a tenant under the respondent. The willful default attributed to the petitioner and the conversion of the premises into a non-residential one were also disputed by the petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the application.

(3.) During the tendency of the proceedings, the respondent herein filed an application in M. P. No. 47 of 1978, under Section 11 of the Act for, stoppage of- all further proceedings and for an order of eviction. In the course of that application, the respondent, after setting out the filing of the application for eviction, had also stated that the petitioner has not chosen to pay the rents from June, 1976 to June 1977 and also for the subsequent period from July 1977, up to November 1977, and that in all, on the date of the application, arrears of 18 months which came to Rs. 288 had renamed unpaid. This application was opposed by the petitioner here in on the ground that he was not a tenant under the respondent and that he had not committed willful default in the payment of rents from- 1-6-1976 to 30-6-1977. An objection was also raised that application under Section 11 of the Act taken out by the respondent is not maintainable in view of the denial of tenancy by the petitioner. On 3-81978, the Rent Controller passed an order on that application to the following effect: "The respondent contends that he has not entered into tenancy agreement with the petitioner and the agreement was only with one Mrs. Shanmughavalli, Mrs. Shaninughavalli is said to be the wife of the petitioner and she is no more and this has been brought out during the course of the enquiry and the same has not been challenged by the tenant. The respondent is admittedly a tenant in respect of the petition premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 16. The respondent does not dispute the fact that he had not paid rent from June 1976, onwards. The respondent cannot deny the petitioner is not the landlord as the petitioner is none else than the husband of the late landlady with whom he entered into tenancy agreement. As per Section 11 of the Act, the tenant is not entitled to contest the application before the Rent Controller without paying the rent due in respect of the demised building. The respondent cannot refuse to pay the rent by newly contending that the tenancy agreement was with the landlady. The respondent is admittedly due rent for the period from June 1976 at the rate of Rs. 16 p. m. The tenant should pay rent up to June 1978, the date of petition i.e. period of 25 months. The total rent due up to June 1978, is 25 x 16 Rs. 400". This amount of Rs. 400 found due from the petitioner up to June 1978 was directed to be paid by the petitioner on or before 25-8-1978, failing which all further proceedings were directed to be stopped and an eviction order was also directed to follow. Admittedly, this amount was not paid as directed by the Rent Controller so that on 26-8-1978, the Rent Controller passed another order to the following effect: "Amount not paid by the respondent. The respondent represents that he intends to prefer an appeal. I am satisfied that the respondent has not complied with the conditional order. No sufficient cause is shown for non-payment. In the result, all further proceedings stopped in the main It R. C and eviction is ordered". Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred an appeal in H. R. A. No. 767 of 1978, to the Appellate Authority (Second Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. The Appellate Authority held that the, petitioner originally became a tenant under Mrs. Shanmughavalli, who was none other than the wife of the respondent herein and that after her death the respondent herein succeeded to her interest as her heir and became the land the rent from Lord and was collecting the tenants in possession of the property and that the petitioner alone refused to pay the rent on some pretext or other. Adverting to the fact that Shanmughavalli was the wife of the respondent which was not challenged and the fact that the petitioner had not paid the rents from June 1976 to June 1978, which was also not seriously disputed by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority concluded that the order directing the petitioner to deposit the rents was correct and that the failure of the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent on or before 25-8-1978, was not in any manner justified 'and therefore, the stoppage of all further proceedings and, the passing of an order for eviction against the petitioner were quite in order. In view of these conclusions, the order of the Rent Controller, was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this civil revision petition.