K P JANAKI AMMAL Vs. K BADRINARAYANAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEFORE extracting in this order as to what is the question of law involved, it is better I trace the facts preceding to the filing of this revision. The revision petitioners are the tenants and the respondent is the landlord and their respective rights are protected under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980, hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act. The premises in question is non-residential in nature. The contractual rent was Rs. 1, 750.00 per month. The landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 2177 of 1985 before the Rent Controller, Madras, under Section 4 of the Rent Act. That petition was filed on 16.7.1985. By order dated 19.4.1988, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs. 6, 335.00 per month. The tenants filed R.C.A. No. 360 of 1988 questioning the correctness of the abovereferred to order. The landlord not satisfied with the quantum of fair rent, filed R.C.A. No.464 of 1988. On 12.1.1990, the Appellate Authority passed a common judgment dismissing the appeal fixed by the tenants and allowing the appeal filed by the landlord and thus fixed the fair rent at Rs.7, 479.00 per month payable with effect from the date of fair rent petition, namely 16.7.1985. Thereafter the landlord filed R.C.O.P. No. 681 of 1992 against the tenants seeking their eviction stating that they are guilty of wilful default in the payment of rent. In that rent control petition, the landlord filed M.P. No.879 of 1992 under Section 11 (3) and (4) of the Rent Act to direct the tenants to pay the arrears of rent quantified at Rs.3, 36, 869.22, at the rate of Rs.7, 479.00 per month as fixed by the Appellate Authority in the fair rent proceedings. That application was opposed on various grounds, one among the few being that the order of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 464 of 1988 fixing fair rent at Rs.7, 479.00 was challenged by the landlord before this Court in a Revision not satisfied on the quantum and that Civil Revision Petition was stated to by unnumbered as there was delay in filing the said Civil Revision Petition. Therefore no finality is reached in the fair rent proceedings and only then the difference can be claimed.

(2.) ULTIMATELY the Rent Controller by order dated 26.3.1993 in M.P. No.879 of 1992 passed an order on merits stating that the tenants, should pay a sum of Rs. 3, 36, 869.22 on or before 12.4.1993 and, failing payment, all further proceedings in the main Rent Control Petition would be stopped followed by an order of eviction. The case was directed to be called on 13.4.1993. It is not in dispute that before the expiry of the time fixed under that order, the tenants moved the Rent Controller for an extension of time and the learned Rent Controller was inclined to extend the time for payment upto 20.4.1993. It is on record that before the expiry of 20.4.1993, the tenants filed R.C.A. No. 405 of 1993 against the order in M.P. No. 879 of 1992 and even obtained an order of stay of the order challenged in that Appeal. This Court is informed that subsequent to the order of stay granted by the Appellate Authority as referred to above and a further proceeding as an off-shoot to that proceedings before this Court, substantial amounts have been paid to the landlord. An objection was taken before the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 405 of 1993 on behalf of the landlord that Section 11(1) of the Rent Act mandatorily provides for depositing of the amount as ordered by the Rent Controller in an application under that Section before filing an Appeal and since the amount as determined by the Rent Controller by order dated 26.3.1993 in M.P. No. 879 of 1992, was not deposited either before the Rent Controller or before the Appellate Authority before the Appeal was filed, the Appeal must be held to be incompetent and not maintainable. Without going into the merits of the case, namely whether the order under challenge before the Appellate Authority would be sustained or not, on facts, the Appellate Authority, sustaining the objection raised on behalf of the landlord on the requirement to deposit the amount found due by the Rent Controller, dismissed the Appeal as not maintainable. The present Revision is before this Court questioning the order dated 28.6.1994 of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No. 405 of 1993.

(3.) THE next judgment that falls for consideration is the one reported in Pichai Chetty (died) v. N.K. Muthu Krishnan, 1991 (2) LW 614. THE facts in that case are as follows: