KANNAN Vs. TAMIL TAHLIR KALVI KAZHAGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common order, the subject-matter of dispute including pleadings and documents being the same with common evidence resulting into a common order, hence they are being disposed of by means of this common judgment.

(2.) The present appellants are the tenants and respondent, the landlord. The short question raised is whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellants are validly depositing the rent under S. 9(3) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), could they be treated as defaulters liable for eviction, when they continued to deposit the said rent as aforesaid in spite of inter se dispute between the landlord culminating by dismissal of the suit for default

(3.) To appreciate this point, it is necessary to dwell on the facts of this case. Out of the two appellants, one appellant is a tenant in respect of the demised premises running the cycle store business in HRCOP No. 132 of 1986 for a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- and the other appellant-tenant is running an Engineering Workshop for a monthly rent of Rs. 85/- in HRCOP No. 133 of 1986. It is not in dispute that some internal squabbles arose in the administration of Tamil Talir Kalvi Kazhagam (hereinafter referred to as 'Kazhagam') who, in fact, is the landlord receiving rent through its President. The appellants took the demised premises on lease from one Mr. Kogilasamy, the then President of the said Kazhagam. Later, on 10th August, 1980 one Mr. Thirumurgugan (sic) is said to have replaced the said Mr. Kogilasamy as he was elected to be the new President. This led to an election dispute between the outgoing and the incoming President. Thereafter, on 7th September, 1980 Mr. Thirumurgan, as the President, issued a notice to the appellants directing them to pay the rent to the treasurer in future, though the name of the treasurer was not indicated therein. On the other hand, the earlier President Mr. Kogilasamy still demanded rent to be paid to him. In this background, a bona fide doubt arose in the mind of the appellants as to whom they should pay the rent. Hence, they filed RCOP Nos. 55 and 56 of 1982 before the Rent Controller under Section 9(3) of the Act for permitting them to deposit the present and the future rent. The appellants impleaded both the outgoing President Mr. Kogilasamy and the incoming President Mr. Thirumurgan. In spite of notice, none appeared. The Rent Controller consequently permitted the appellants to deposit the rent. The order of the Rent Controller reveals that many other persons also claimed right to collect the rent of the demised property. Though the election of the President, as aforesaid, was on 10th August, 1980 and the dispute erupting immediately thereafter but the earlier President Mr. Kogilasamy filed a suit only in the year 1983, being O.S. No. 92 of 1983, before the Second Additional Sub-Judge, Pondicherry, for declaring the election held on 10th August, 1980 as null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the office bearers from carrying out the administration. The said suit was dismissed for default on the 6th February, 1984.