GEETHA Vs. SREELATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants are the revision petitioners. They challenge in this revision under Section 20, the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction which was passed against them on the ground of arrears of rent and also on the ground of bona fide need for own occupation. In the Rent Control Petition it was alleged by the landlady that the rent was in arrears from 28/11/01 and that in spite of issuance of a statutory intimation notice under the proviso to Section 11(2)(b) the arrears of rent was not discharged. The revision petitioners through their statement of objections denied the allegation and contended that the arrears of rent as alleged were discharged. The need projected by the landlady was that she who was technically qualified wants to have her own DTP centre and a centre for job works in the petition schedule building so that she can augment the income of the family which presently is the meagre salary of her husband who was a Class IV employee in Government Service. The bona fides of the claim was disputed and it was contended that the real intention was to evict the tenants so that the building can be let out to others on much higher rent. The revision petitioners also claimed that they are entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. The Rent Control Court conducted a detailed enquiry in which the evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A4(a), B1, C1 and C1(a), X1, PW1 and CPW1. The Commissioner was also examined as CW1. The Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence held that the eviction grounds under Section 11(2) (b) as well as under Section 11(3) stood established. It was also held that the tenant failed to prove that they are entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. Accordingly, order of eviction was passed both under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. Even though the revision petitioners preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the learned Appellate Authority made a re -appraisal of the evidence that Authority would confirm the findings of the Rent Control Court and dismiss the RCA. In this revision under Section 20 various grounds have been raised challenging the findings entered by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. It is urged that the eviction orders passed both under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) are unsustainable and the findings are contrary.

(2.) SRI . B. Krishna Mani, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners addressed us extensively on the basis of the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. The learned counsel would submit in the context of the ground under Section 11(2)(b) that Ext.A2 notice under the proviso to Section 11(2)(b) demanding arrears of rent was issued way back in 11/06/04 and the Rent Control Petition was instituted only in 2009. The learned counsel submitted that the statutory authorities under the order/judgment passed by them have found that the rent was in arrears up to the date of institution of the Rent Control Petition. The arrears of rent contemplated for passing an eviction order under Section 11(2)(b) is the arrears of rent demanded in the statutory intimation notice. The finding that rent is in arrears up to the date of institution of the RCP is a finding which takes in rent which fell due subsequent to Ext.A2. This finding is illegal and contrary to binding judicial precedents including those rendered by the Supreme Court. The learned counsel also submitted that a substantial portion of the rent found by the statutory authorities to be in arrears has become time barred. The revision petitioners have no liability to pay time barred rent. The impugned judgment will compel the revision petitioners to pay the time barred rent also, so submitted Sri.Krishna Mani.

(3.) WE have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. The revision petitioners had a case that the arrears of rent demanded in Ext.A2 was discharged by them. But they could not adduce any evidence except their own ipse dixit to prove the above case. The two authorities appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that the arrears of rent which was demanded in Ext.A2 remained undischarged even at the time of filing the Rent Control Petition. It is an eviction order under Section 11(2)(b) which has been passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. Eviction orders passed under Section 11(2)(b) are in a way tentative and are always liable to be got vacated at the instance of the tenant if he invokes Section 11(2)(c). The sufficiency of the amounts to be deposited for invocation of Section 11(2)(c) is a matter to be decided by the Rent Control Court when Section 11(2)(c) is invoked. We leave it to the Rent Control Court to decide on the sufficiency of the amount paid or deposited by the Rent Control Court for getting the eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b) vacated.