G RAJENDRAN Vs. PRESIDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order dated 3.6.2002 made in I.A.No.20 of 2001 in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2000 by the Court of District Munsif, Polur.

(2.) Tracing the history of the case, what comes to be known is that the petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord; that the respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2000 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Polur, under Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default; that pending R.C.O.P. the landlord has filed an application in I.A.No.20 of 2001 under Section 11(4) of the TNB(L&R) Act praying to deposit a sum of Rs.17,640/- towards he arrears of rent in which the petitioner/tenant filed counter affidavit stating that he had no arrears of rent and he wanted the landlord to produce the accounts. Apart from that the landlord also filed a suit in O.S.No.53 of 2001 on the file of the very same court, the District Munsif, Polur, for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,640/- towards the arrears of rent from the petitioner/tenant; that in that suit also the petitioner filed written statement stating that there was no arrears of rent and he was paying the rent regularly; that the Rent Controller without considering the various disputes regarding the arrears of rent between the petitioner and the respondent had passed an order directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent, failing which the R.C.O.P. would stand automatically allowed. It is only testifying the validity of the said order, the petitioner has come forward to file this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of revision.

(3.) During arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court has not considered the object of the Section 11 of the Act and the and has not exercised the jurisdiction properly while disposing the application, erred in ordering eviction; that the court below failed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 11(3) of the Act while passing the order and without giving findings under Section 11(3), the order passed by the court below is nothing but excess of exercising jurisdiction and that the very application itself filed under Section 11(4) of the Act is not maintainable, as per the decision of this Court; that the application ought to have filed only under Section 11(3) of the Act; that the court below is not right in passing the simultaneous order to pay the rent and failing which to deliver possession which is virtually two orders in the application which was not filed for that purpose by the respondent; that the court below failed to appreciate the legal submission that the very Rent Control proceedings is not maintainable by the Trust; that the court below failed to consider the fact that the respondent has already filed a suit for recovery of the arrears of rent before the Court of District Munsif, the petition for depositing the arrears of rent is not maintainable. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would cite a judgment reported in 2003(2) CTC 747 (MOHAMMED NIYAMATHULLAH vs. V.SATHITHA) wherein it has been held: A careful reading of these sub-sections 11(3) and 11(4) would obviously mean that an enquiry has got to be held under Section 11(3) of the Act, when there is any dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited under Section 11(1). On application made either by the tenant or landlord, and after making enquiry, the Court shall determine summarily the rent to be so paid/deposited. If the above said order is not complied with, the Rent Controller/Appellate Authority as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the buildings under Section 11S(4) of the Act. But, Section 11(4) does not say/prescribe a separate application to be filed under the said Section. That means an application has to be made only under Section 11(3) of the Act, and if the order passed under Section 11(3) is not complied with, it is automatic for the Rent Controller to pass an order to stop all further proceedings and direct the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the buildings and the said order has got to be passed under Section 11(4) of the Act.