SHABBIR ROSHAN ZAVERI Vs. SAKINABAI MOHSANBHOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner, who is the tenant, filed C.R.P. No. 3934 of 2010 challenging the order of the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act') reversing the order of the Rent Controller permitting the petitioner to deposit rent before the Court under Section 8(5) of the Act. He also filed C.R.P. No. 3935 of 2010 challenging the said order of eviction on the ground of willful default. The revision petitioner filed an application under 8(5) of the Act seeking permission of the Rent Controller for depositing the rent before the Court. Pending that application, the landlady filed an application for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of willful default and also claiming that he is the subtenant. She claimed rent for the period from 01.04.1998 to 31.10.1998. The Rent Controller allowed the application of the petitioner under Section 8(5) of the Act and dismissed the application of the landlady for eviction on the ground of willful default.

(2.) Aggrieved against the same, the landlady preferred two appeals, namely, one against allowing the petition under Section 8(5) of the Act and another against dismissal of the application for eviction. The appellate Court under the Act allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the Rent Controller permitting the petitioner to deposit the rent and refusing eviction thereby ordered eviction of the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, the present revision petitions are filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly would contend that insofar as the application under Section 8(5) of the Act is concerned, it was allowed by the Rent Controller and he had complied with the order by paying the rent. Thereafter, when the appeal was allowed and his request for deposit of rent was rejected, he has no forum to deposit the rent and therefore, he was prohibited from paying rent. Hence, there is no default, much less, willful default. The appellate court erred in the passing the order. Hence, he seeks for allowing these revision petitions. He would also contend in open court, when these revisions posted under the caption 'for orders' were taken up for hearing, that he is willing to deposit the arrears of rent today, if the court directs him to pay the same.