T.C.A. ANANDALWAR Vs. THE SECOND JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two applications for issue of writs of certiorari arise in respect of the same subject -matter, namely, Premises No. 118, China Bazaar Road, Madras. The petitioner is the landlord, the contesting respondent is the tenant. The petitioner filed two successive applications before the Rent Controller, Madras, for eviction. The first application was on the ground that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent for February, March and April, 1948. The other application was on the ground that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent for July August and September, 1948. The Rent Controller passed orders of eviction on both the applications, and there were two appeals to the Court of Small Causes. Both the appeals were allowed by the learned Third Judge of that Court, on practically the same reasoning. The landlord has filed the above two applications to quash the two orders of the learned Judge.

(2.) IT is sufficient to state the following facts for the disposal of these applications The rent of the premises for January was payable by the end of February 1948 -A telegraphic money order for the rent of January was apparently despatched by the tenant on 29th February, 1948, from Baroda, but actually the money order was delivered to the petitioner only on 1st March, 1948, when he refused to accept it. Thereafter, there is no finding that the tenant made any tender of the rent due for any of the subsequent months, February onwards. On these facts, the learned Judge held (I) that there was a valid tender of the rent for January, and an unjustifiable refusal by the landlord and (2) that, because of this unjustifiable refusal, it was not necessary in law for the tenant to go on tendering, month after month, the rent due for each month. According to the learned Judge, in these circumstances, the tenant could not be considered to be a defaulter in respect of the rent due for the months, February to April and July to September, 1948.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent contended that as there was another remedy open to the petitioner, the application for a writ of certiorari was not competent. The remedy, according to him, is to apply in revision to this Court against the order of the Court of Small Causes. He relied upon the decision of Panchapakesa Aiyar, J., in Krishna Nair v. : (1949)1MLJ74 . With respect to the learned Judge, we find that his decision loses its value because of the omission to refer to. an important statutory provision, namely, Sub -section (4) of Section 12: