- (1.) MR. ?B. ?Kalathinathan for the petr.Caveator in person. 1. This Civil Revision Petition by the tenant under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, is against the order dated 21-8-1989 in R.C.A. 495 of 1989 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, reversing the order of the Rent Controller, in M.P. 3 of 1987 in R.C.O. P. 3084 of 1986.
(2.) THE said R.C.O.P. is for eviction of the petitioner from the petition premises on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent for the period from 1-4-1982 to the end of August 1986. In the said R.C.O.P. the respondent landlord filed the abovesaid M.P. 3 of 1987 seeking an order under S. 11(4) of the Act. Earlier the landlord filed R.C.O. P.2115 of 1985 for fixation of fair rent for the said demised building and by an order dated 22-12-1983 the fair rent was fixed at Rs. 110-60 as against theagreed rent of Rs 20. He also held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; the appeal, therefore, was also dismissed. However, in the subsequent C.R.P., this court held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and enhanced the fair rent to Rs. 146 per month by its order dated 28-2-1986. Since the said R.C.O.P. was filed on 1-4-1982, the petitioner tenant herein became liable to pay the rent at that rate, from 1-4-1982. THE review petition filed against the said C.R.P. order was also dismissed in October 1988. Subsequent to the above order of the C.R.P. the respondent-landlord filed the above said R.C.O.P. 3084 of 1986 for eviction on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent for the above said period from 1-4-1982 till the end of August 1986 and also filed by the abovesaid M.P.3 of 1987 stating that the tenant should not be allowed to contest the R.C.O.P. unless he pays all the arrears of rent as per the fair rent fixed by this court on 28-2-1986 and praying for eviction under S. 11(4) of the Act. THE Rent Controller dismissed the said M.P. but the appellate authority in R.C.A. 495 of 1988 set aside the order of the Rent Controller and directed the tenant to pay a sura of Rs. 7479-43 on or before 21-9-1989 towards the arrears of rent due for the period 1-4-1982 till the end of August 1986 at the rate of Rs. 146 per mensem as fixed by this court on 28-2-1986. It is against the said order of the appellate authority the tenant has filed this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the decision of this Court reported in Ranganathan v. M. Suri 1 , the order of the appellate authority is wrong. No doubt, in the said decision it was held that the failure to pay the difference between the fair rent and the agreed rent will not attract the provisions of S. 10(2) (i) and, consequently, S.ll(4) of the above said Act, with reference to the rent due before the date on which fair rent has been fixed. However, the said decision itself states that with reference to the fair rent due after the date on which fair rent has been fixed the said failure would attract the provisions of S. 10(2) (i) of the Rent Control Act and consequently S. 11 (4) of the Act. In the present case, as stated above, the fair rent was originally fixed as early as 22-12 I9?3. No doubt, when it was originally fixed, the lower Court held that the respondent and the petitioner herein had no relationship of landlord and tenant. But, however, as stated above, when the matter came up before the High Court in C.R.P. 4221 of 1987 this Court held that such relationship was there and enhanced the fair rent to Rs. 146 per month. But the tenant was only paying the agreed rent of Rs. 20 per month. After the order dated 22-12-1983, he ought to have paid the rent of Rs. 110-60 per mensem but he paid any at the rate of Rs. 20 per month. So, with reference to the balance, the order under S.ll(4) of the Act could be passed, since the tenant did not pay the said balance. Even assuming the liability to pay the fair rent begins only from 28-2-1986, when only the High Court held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, even then, the tenant should have paid the fair rent at the rate of Rs. 146 from 28-2-1986 till the end of August, 1986. Even that he has not done and even after 28-2-1986 he paid only at the rate of Rs. 20. Therefore, even applying the decision reported in Ranganathan v. Suri 1 when an order is passed under S.ll(4) of the Act, it cannot be said that the said order is wrong. Even assuming the quantum of rent which the appellate authority directed the tenant to pay is not correct, it is clear that at least the difference between Rs. 146 Rs. 20 per month for the period 28-2-1986 till the end of August, 1986, the tenant ought to have paid to the landlord, if he wanted to contest the R.C.O.P. Therefore, the direction given by the appellate authority to the tenant to pay, to the extent stated above, if not the entire sum of Rs. 7479-63 cannot be said to be wrong. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. However, the petitioner tenant is given three months, time to vacate the premises provided he files within two weeks from this date an undertaking affidavit that he would vacate within the said period without resorting to any further litigation.;