K SINGARAVELAN Vs. VASANTHA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petition No. 2848 of 1993 is directed against the judgment in R. C. A. No. 35 of 1989 confirming the Order of eviction passed in R. C. O. P. No. 52 of 1981. C. R. P. No. 2849 of 1993 is directed against the judgment in R. C. A. No. 36 of 1989, confirming the order in R. C. O. P. No. 124 of 1981, dismissing the petition filed by the tenant for depositing the rent. THE revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondents are the present landlords. THE landlords application for eviction on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent was sustained by the Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority. THE tenant' ; s application to deposit the rent was dismissed by the Rent Controller and affirmed in appeal. Thus these two revisions before this Court. In view of the fact that both the rent Controller and the Appellate Authority chose to dispose of both the cases by a common order, I am also inclined to dispose of these two revisions by a common order.

(2.) I heard Mr. V. Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in each of these two revisions and Mr. R. Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in each of the these two revisions. In this order, the parties to the proceedings would be hereinafter referred to as the landlords and the tenant respectively. There is no dispute, about the landlords-tenant relationship and the rent being Rs. 175 per month. The tenancy is for non-residential purpose and it commenced on 1. 9. 1973 is also not in dispute. The petition was filed, alleging that the tenant had committed wilful default in the payment of rent from 1. 9. 1973 onwards. It is no doubt true that the tenant came into occupation of the demised premises under the agreement dated 1. 9. 1973 and the rent reserved therein was Rs. 175 per month. On the same date i. e. , on 1. 9. 1973 the tenant, the erstwhile landlord by name nandakumar who is the husband of the first landlady and the father of the other two persons mortgaged the demised property in favour of one Krishnamurthy. The interest payable under the mortgage per month was fixed at Rs. 225 on 1. 9. 1973 itself. A tripartite agreement was entered into, to which Nandakumar who is no more, the mortgagee by name Krishnamurthy and the tenant are parties. Under this agreement, the tenant was directed to pay the rent payable to the landlord by him per month to the said mortgagee and collect the receipt from hint, in respect of such payment. The mortgagee was also authorised to receive the said payment and credit it towards the interest liability of the mortgagor. The balance interest amount of Rs. 50 p. m. was to be directly paid by the mortgagor to the mortgagee. The tenancy agreement was for a period of five years and the mortgage was also to be in force for the period of five years. It is the case of the tenant that he had been strictly adhering to the terms of the tripartite agreement dated 1. 9. 1973 and he had been paying the monthly rent payable to the mortgagee without fait. The tripartite agreement is marked as Ex. B-1 in this case. The tenancy agreement is marked as Ex. A-1 in this case. The mortgagee is examined as R. W. 2. The mortgagee as R. W. 2 had admitted that he had received a sum of Rs. 175 p. m. from the tenant upto February, 1981. Nandakumar, the mortgagor had died some time in January, 1978. Ex. A-2 is the notice dated 17. 7. 1990, issued by the present landlords to the tenant informing him that he is in default of the payment of rent from 1. 9. 1973, onwards. Ex. B-1 is the reply dated 24. 7. 1980 signed by the tenant to the landlords, informing them about the existence of the tripartite agreement under which he has been continuously paying the monthly rent to the mortgagee. The landlords kept quite after the receipt of Ex. B-1 and they had not taken any steps either to redeem the mortgage or to inform the tenant that despite the tripartite agreement, he need not pay the rent to the mortgagee or that the mortgagee has lost his right to collect the rent or that the mortgage had been redeemed or not. Therefore, the tenant, in my opinion, could have been led to believe that the landlords had accepted the contents of reply marked as Ex. B-1 in this case. Then comes the present rent control petition for eviction. The tenant had also filed r. C. O. P. No. 124 of 1991 in March, 1981 for depositing the rent from that month onwards into the court. To this proceedings, the landlords as well as the mortgagee were made parties.