SIVAPPA CHETTIAR Vs. VAIDYALINGA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Unsuccessful tenant who lost before both the Authorities is the revision petitioner. The respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.12 of 1991 before the Rent Controller for eviction of petitioner/tenant under Sec.10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Rent Controller ordered eviction which was confirmed by the appellate authority, hence the present revision.

(2.) THE respondent herein is the landlord of the building in question. THE monthly rent is Rs.47.50. For non-payment of rent from March, 1990 to August, 1991, the tenant has not paid the rent. Since the tenant failed to pay the rent periodically and even after filing of petition under Sec.8(5) of the said Act to deposit the rent in court, the respondent-landlord had filed eviction petition on the ground of non-payment of rent under Sec.10(2)(1) of the said Act. THE contention of the landlord that the tenant was in arrears of rent and failed to deposit the same, particularly for the period November, 1990 to August, 1991, the Rent Controller accepted the landlord's case and ordered eviction of the same has been confirmed by the appellate authority.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has very much relied on a judgment of Ratnam, J., (as he then was) in the case of K.Avinasilingam v. Hamsa and another K.Avinasilingam v. Hamsa and another K.Avinasilingam v. Hamsa and another , 1990 T.L.N.J. 108 In the said decision, the learned Judge has held that the deposit contemplated under Sec.8(5) of the Act pursuant to the order passed by the Rent Controller should also be regular and in time so that no occasion for the landlord initiating an action for eviction on the ground of wilful default, arises. His Lordship has also held that the very purpose behind Secs.8(5) and 9(2) of the Act will be completely lost, if it is to be held that the deposit of rents could be made by the tenant as and when he chooses. There is no dispute with regard to the said proposition of law laid down in that case. I have already stated that in view of the attitude of the landlord, the petitioner-tenant has filed appropriate petition under Sec.8(5) of the Act and also necessary lodgment schedule. In view of the delay in passing orders, the petitioner could not deposit rent then and there. In other works, it is clear that since the court had not issued challan for deposit of rent, the rent had not been paid for certain months, the same cannot be termed to be wilful. I am satisfied that the landlord had refused to receive the rent sent by the tenant through money orders prior to the filing of the petition. It is also brought to my notice that the landlord had filed a petition for fixation of fair rent and the tenant had also filed a petition seeking permission of the court to deposit the rent under Sec.8(5) of the Act. In the circumstances, the non-payment of rent could not be construed as wilful. When there is enough material to show that the court had not issued challan for deposit of rents and because of this reason the rents were not deposited for few months, I am of the view that the principle namely no party should be prejudiced by the act of the court is applicable to petitioner's case and the delay caused due to the pendency of the proceedings could not be used against the tenant's interest. All those aspects have not been considered by both the authorities and they committed an error in rendering a finding that non-deposit of rent for the period from November, 1990 to August, 1991 was intentional and deliberate. The said finding cannot be accepted for the reasons mentioned above.