M GOVINDARAJAN Vs. R S VAIDEESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil revision petitions are filed by the tenant as revision petitioner in both civil revision petitions against separate judgments and decrees dated 14.8.2000 and made in R.C.A.Nos. 1354 of 1996 and 1165 of 1996 on the file of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras confirming the separate orders and decretal orders dated 27.8.1996 and made in M.P.No.303 of 1993 in R.C.O.P.No.1413 of 1992 and R.C.O.P.No.1413 of 1992 respectively on the file of the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.

(2.) THE facts that are necessary for disposal of these civil revision petitions are as follows: -THE respondent herein, who is the petitioner, is the owner of the premises described in the Rent Control Original Petition and the revision petitioner in both civil revision petitions, herein after referred to as "the revision petitioner" is the tenant of the demised premises on a monthly rent of Rs.300. THE respondent herein filed a petition for eviction against the revision petitioner on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period from 1.1.1992 to 30.4.1992. THE said petition was resisted by the revision petitioner on the ground that there is no arrears of rent and also on the ground that the revision petitioner had paid an advance of Rs.5,000 and pagadi of Rs.5,000 totalling to Rs.10,000 at the time of entering into a tenancy agreement with the respondent herein. During the pendency of the said petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default, the respondent herein filed a petition under section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, herein after referred to as "the Act", requesting for a direction to deposit the arrears of rent by the revision petitioner to defend the Rent Control Original Petition. THE said petition was resisted by the revision petitioner on the ground that the revision petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.5,000 towards advance and Rs.5,000 towards pagadi totalling to Rs.l0,000 and therefore, the above said amount has to be adjus ted towards the rental arrears, if any and the revision petitioner cannot be prevented from defending the eviction proceeding.

(3.) THE only question that arises for consideration at this stage is whether the deposit of arrears of rent by the revision petitioner on or before 4.8.1993 as per the direction of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority will amount to extension of time for payment of arrears of rent which was directed to be deposited on or before 2.7.1993 by the learned Rent Controller. THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner, though sought stay of the order of the learned Rent Controller passed in. M.P.No.303 of 1993, was directed to deposit the said arrears of rent on or before 4.8.1993 in the petition filed by the revision petitioner for stay as a condition precedent and that will certainly amount to extending the time by the competent Court to deposit the arrears of rent which was found due by the learned Rent Controller from the revision petitioner. But on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein vehemently contends that there is no petition for extension of time either before the learned Rent Controller or before the Appellate Authority and therefore, the direction given by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority upto 4.8.1993 to deposit the arrears of rent found due by the learned Rent Controller will not amount to extension of time. In support of such contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Arputham v. Singaravelu Nadar and Sons rep. by Partners , 1988 (2) M.L.J. 261. In that case, the learned Rent Controller directed the tenant in a petition filed under section 11(3) of the Act to deposit the arrears of rent on or before 31.5.1986 by order dated 16.4.1986. THE tenant did not deposit the rent as ordered by Court and therefore, the learned Rent Controller stopped all further proceedings on 17.6.1986 and directed the tenant to handover possession of the premises in question in that case to the landlords on or before 31.7.1986. THE order directing the tenant to handover possession to the landlords on or before 31.7.1986 was challenged before the Authorities concerned. THE appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller. It is against this order, the tenant filed a civil revision petition before this Court. In the circumstances of the case, it was held by the learned single Judge of this Court that it is for the Rent Controller, after satisfying himself that there was arrears of rent from the tenant to the landlords, has to direct the tenant to deposit the rent under section 11(3) of the Act, that if the said arrears of rent has not been deposited within the stipulated time, it is for the tenant to show sufficient cause for his default, that in the event of default, the Rent Controller has got every right to stop all further proceedings and to direct the tenant to put the landlords in possession of the building, that such order has to be passed in the main eviction petition and it has also been done by the Rent Controller correctly and therefore held that the revision petition is not maintainable. THE facts and circumstances of the case cited above is entirely different to the facts and circumstances of this case and therefore, it will have no application to the case on hands.