ESAKKIAMMAL Vs. KOMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions are filed against the order in I.A.No.15 of 2009 in R.C.A.No.4 of 2009 and R.C.A.No. 4 of 2009 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli.

(2.) THE revision petitioner is the tenant and R.C.O.P.No.19 of 2007 was filed by the respondents herein for eviction of the revision petitioner on the ground of wilful default. In the said R.C.O.P.No.19 of 2007, the revision petitioner has stated that the respondents herein are not the owners of the suit schedule property and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. Nevertheless, R.C.O.P.No. 19 of 2007 was allowed and eviction was ordered. Against the said order, the revision petitioner filed R.C.A.No.4 of 2009 and in that R.C.A. No.4 of 2009, the respondents filed I.A.No.15 of 2009 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act directing the tenant to pay or deposit all the arrears of rent. In that application also the revision petitioner has taken the plea that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the respondents are not the landlord. Meanwhile, the respondents herein also filed O.S.No.213 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Tirunelveli against the revision petitioner for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs.64,200/ - being the rent from March 2006 to March 2009. The respondents also filed an application for attachment of the property of the revision petitioner and that was also ordered in I.A.No.440 of 2009. In these circumstances, the Rent Control Appellate Authority passed an order in I.A.No.15 of 2009 directing the revision petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs.67,600/ - representing the rent for the period from February 2005 to March 2009 on or before 12.10.2009, failing which the further proceedings will be ordered according to law. As the revision petitioner did not deposit the amount as ordered, all further proceedings were stopped and eviction order was passed in R.C.A.No.4 of 2009. Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.15 of 2009 in R.C.A.No. 4 of 2009 and the order passed in R.C.A.No.4 of 2009, these revisions are filed by the revision petitioner.

(3.) MR .S.Meenakshisundaram, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that when the tenant has disputed the relationship between the parties and did not admit that the respondents are the landlords entitled to receive the rent from him without giving any finding about the relationship between the parties, the Court should not have directed the tenant to deposit the arrears. He further contended that the revision petitioner has already vacated the premises and he is no longer doing business in the said premises and the respondents have also filed the suit in O.S.No.213 of 2009 for the recovery of arrears of rent for the same period as stated in I.A.No.15 of 2009 and hence, the Rent Control Appellate Authority without deciding the issue whether the respondents are entitled to collect the rent from the revision petitioner should not have passed the conditional order and if the order is not set aside it may also operate res judicata in the suit filed by the respondents against him.