SANKARAN PILLAI Vs. V P VENGUDUSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein are the tenants (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant'). It appears that on 6th October, 1982 the tenant entered into an agreement with erstwhile owner of the building, namely, the Church of South India Trust Association for purchase of the premises in dispute. It is stated that the appellants paid a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs towards the part payment of consideration amount under the said agreement. It further appears that subsequently certain disputes arose with regard to the mode of payment of the balance amount and as a result of which on 12th April, 1984 the Church repudiated the agreement. On 29th August, 1986 the tenant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement referred to above. While the aforesaid suit was pending, the Church on 12-11-86 executed a sale deed in respect of premises in dispute in favour of first respondent namely, V. P. Venuguduswami. After purchasing the aforesaid premises the purchaser who became the landlord of the premises filed a suit on 27-8-87 for ejectment of the tenant-appellant on various grounds, including the default in payment of arrears of rent for a period beginning from 12-11-86 to 31-7-87. It is not disputed that the premises in dispute is governed by the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Since one of the grounds for ejectment was default in payment of rent, the Rent Controller on 23-7-1990 passed an order under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act directing the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent by 3-8-90. The tenant did not comply the order dated 23-7-1990. Since the order dated 23-7-90 remained non-complied, the Rent Controller by an order dated 7-8-90 passed an order for eviction of the tenant. The tenant preferred two separate appeals, one of which was directed against the order dated 23-7-90 and the other related to the order dated 7-8-90. On 22-8-90, the tenant deposited the arrears of rent before the appellate authority as the said deposit was condition precedent for the appeal being heard on merits. The appellate authority by an order dated 27-10-92 allowed both the appeals holding that the tenant was not liable to deposit the arrears of rent. The subsequent purchaser, namely, the respondent aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred Civil Revision Petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Madras which were numbered as Civil Revision Petition Nos. 3195-3196/93. The High Court allowed the Revision Petitions and that is how the tenant is in appeal before us.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the facts that the tenant after having entered into an agreement with the erstwhile owner of the building paid considerable amount of money towards part performance of the agreement and his further filing of suit in the Civil Court for specific performance of the agreement constituted sufficient cause under sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act for non-depositing the arrears of rent within time, as well as monthly rent which became due in respect of building and, therefore, this Court may, after condoning the delay, permit the appellant to deposit the entire arrears of rent and remand the matter to the Rent Controller to enable the appellant to contest the application filed by the landlord for his eviction from the premises on the ground of default in payment of rent in order to appreciate the argument of learned counsel it is necessary to look into the relevant provisions of Section 11 of the Act. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) of the Act runs as under:

(3.) In view of the above, the appeals fail and are dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.