C P GOPINATH Vs. LEELA GOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition in which the entire blame has to be bourne only by the revision petitioner. At any rate, he has to be squarely blamed for not bringing a very vital matter to the notice of the Appellate Authority whose order is sought to be revised. Against the petitioner, an order of eviction was passed in H. R. C. No. 641 of 1978 on 24th July, 1980, on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras. Aggrieved against that order of eviction, he preferred H. R. A. No. 1506 of the 1980. Under the terms of section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), hereinafter referred to as the Act, it is incumbent upon him to deposit all arrears of rent due in respect of the building upto the date of payment or deposit. There is a further obligation to continue the payment of the depesit of any rent which might subsequently become due in respect of the building until the termination of proceedings before the Controller or Appellate Authority. The petitioner preferred M. P. No. 3239 of 1980 requiring him to deposit the arrears of rent which had accrued upto the date, namely, Rs. 16,600. Time was granted to deposit the entire amount on or before 25th April, 1981. That order was questioned in C. R. P. No. 1346 of 1981. THIS Court dismissed the revision in limine. THIS was on 24th April, 1981. Thereafter, without bringing that fact to the notice of the Appellate Authority, a sum of Rs. 5,000 was deposited on the next day, namely 25th April, 1981, and for deposit of the remaining amount of Rs. 11,600, time was extended in a separate application in M. P. No. 1079 of 1981 till 24th June, 1981. Therefore, it was ordered that the matter may, be called on 25th June, 1981 awaiting the deposit. On 25th June, 1981, the balance of Rs. 11,600 was not deposited in full, only a sum of Rs. 5,000 alone was deposited. At this junction, it is necessary for me to refer to the affidavit filed in support of the petition for extension of time (M. P. No. 1079 of 1981). That runs as follows:

(2.) IT was under these circumstances the Appellate Authority thought fit to make an order under section 11 (4) of the Act and dismissed the appeal summarily. IT is this which has led to the present revision.

(3.) WHAT is now contended before me is that, inasmuch as all the arrears upto date as required on the part of the petitioner have been deposited, the Rent Control appeal may be directed to be taken on file and be disposed of on merits. The respondent strenuously urges that once C. R. P. No. 1316 of 1981, had come to be dismissed the order had become final and thereafter there is no scope for extension of time. On 25th April, 1981, the position was, the petitioner had no other choice excepting to comply with the order of the deposit of Rs. 16,600, if he was really serious in prosecuting the appeal. But, strangely he deposited merely Rs. 5,000 and got time for another two months. Even then he would not comply with the order in full. Where, therefore, the extension itself on 25th April, 1981, was obtained only in the teeth of the order of the High Court, this is clearly a case of suppression of a material fact. Under these circumstances this Court will not interfere having regard to the conduct of the petitioner. It is no consolation to say that presently all arrears have been deposited.