PICHAI CHETTY Vs. N K MUTHUKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representatives of the deceased tenant are the petitioners herein. THE petitioner premises is situate at No. 5, 1st Cross Street, New Colony, Saidapet, Madras-15. THE respondent herein purchased the premises under a registered sale deed dt. 18.8.1986 from M.C. Gopal. THE petitioners herein are in occupation of the ground oor of the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/. THE respondent herein is in occupation of the first floor. THE petition for eviction was filed under Ss. 10(2) (i) and 10(3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the landlord, the tenant failed and neglected to pay the rent from 1.7.1986 till 31.10.86 and also committed act of waste, materially impairing the value and utility of the building. Further according to the landlord, he required the portion under the occupation of the tenants by way of additional accommodation. THErefore, the landlord sent a notice tothe tenant on 2.10.1986 callingupon them to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition premises. But there was no reply to the notice sent by the landlord.

(2.) ACCORDING to the tenants there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent herein. The tenants are not recognising the respondent herein as the landlord. The petitioners herein are tenants in respect of the petition premises under one Rajeswariammal, to whom the petitioners were paying the rent regularly from the inception of tenancy in 1972 onwards. There is a suit O.S. No. 2742 of 1987 pending on the file of City Civil Court, Madras questioning the title of the respondent herein for the petition premises. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the respondent herein to say that the petitioners herein committed wilful default in payment of rent. During the pendency of the H.R.CO.P. No. 3702 of 1986, the respondent herein filed a petition under S.ll(4) of the Act in M.P. No. 1063 of 1987 for collecting the arrears of rent. The petitioners herein filed a counter stating that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant [between the respondent and the petitioners and therefore the respondent herein cannot ask the petitioners herein to pay the rent. However, the Rent Controller after hearing both the parties directed the petitioners herein to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,200/- towards arrears of rent on or before 22.10.1987, but the petitioners herein did not comply with that order. Therefore, the Rent Controller, terminated the proceedings and ordered eviction on 23.10.1987. The petitioners herein did not file any appeal against the order passed in M.P. No. 1063 of 1987. But the petitioners herein filed an appeal R.C.A. No. 840 of 1987 against the order of eviction passed in the main R.C.O.P. No. 3702 of 1986. The Rent Control Appellate Authority entertained the appeal and ultimately came to the conclusion that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent herein. ACCORDINGly, the appellate authority confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. As against the order, the present revision has been preferred by the tenants before this court.

(3.) IT remains to be seen that when the eviction proceedings was pending, the respondent herein filed a petition under S.ll(4) of the Act for a direction to the tenants to pay the arrears of rent. The Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit the rent of Rs. 4,200/- on or before 22.10.1987, but that order was not complied with. Therefore, the proceedings were terminated and eviction was ordered in the main petition on 23.10.1987. No appeal was filed against the order passed under S.ll(4) of the Act. According to the learned counsel for the landlord, without paying the arrears of rent as directed by the Rent Controller in his order u/s. 11 (4) of the Act, the appeal against the order passed in the main eviction petition ought not to have been entertained by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. IT was further pointed out that on the same reasoning the present revision is liable to be dismissed in limine . On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein submitted that the order passed under S.ll(4) of the Act has got merged with the order of eviction passed in the main eviction petition on 23.10.1987 and therefore no further appeal need to be filed against the order under S.ll(4) of the Act.