M K RAMASWAMY Vs. A KRISHNA MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .R.P. No. 3283 of 1987 is directed against the order passed in R.C.A. No. 95 of 1985 which in turn arose out of the order passed in R.C.O.P. No. 9 of 1981. C.R.P.No. 3284 is directed against the order passed in R.C.A. No. 96 of 1985 which in turn arose out of the order passed in R.C.O.P.. No. 7 of 1981. The tenants are the petitioners herein. The landlord filed petition for eviction against both the tenants under Section 10(2)(i) and Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act. According to the landlord, the tenant in C.R.P. No. 3283 of 1987 committed wilful default in payment of rent upto 31.12.1980 for a period of 11 months at the rate of Rs. 85 per mensem amounting to Rs. 1,020 and therefore he is liable to be evicted under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act. So also the tenant in C.R.P. No. 3284 committed wilful default in payment of rent upto 31.12.1980 for a period of 11 months at the rate of Rs. 556 per mensem amounting to Rs. 660/-. Therefore, he is also liable to be evicted under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act. According to the landlord the tenants filed petitions under Section 8(5) of the Act to deposit the rent Court. The Rent Control Court directed directed the tenants deposit the rent Court. In spite of the said order passed by the Rent Controller, the tenants failed and neglected to deposit the rent for the period of abovesaid 11 months. Hence, according to the landlord, they have committed wilful default in payment of rent. The landlord also sent a notice on 14.11.1980 with regard to the tenant relating to C.R.P. No. 3283 of 1987. The tenant sent a reply on 18.11.1980. The tenant also sent a further reply on 27.11.1980. Alongwith the said reply, the tenant sent a cheque for Rs. 1,020/-. But the landlord refused to receive the same. According to the landlord since the tenant failed to deposit the rent as directed by the Court for a period of 11 months, he is liable to be evicted under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act. In the case of tenant in C.R.P. No 3284 of 1987 is concerned, the landlord sent a notice on 14.11.1980 and the tenant sent a reply on 19.11.1980 and alongwith the reply, the tenant sent a cheque for Rs. 550/-. The landlord refused to receive the same. According to the landlord, inasmuch as the tenant failed to deposit the rent as per the earlier direction of the Rent Controller, he committed wilful default in payment of rent and thereby rendering himself liable to be evicted under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act. The landlord also required the petition premises bonafide for demolition and reconstruction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. Since according to the landlord, the building is in a dilapidated condition. According to the landlord, he is having sufficient means to demolish the existing building and to put up a new superstructure . The landlord obtained a sanctioned plan from Municipality for demolition and reconstruction. Therefore, according to the landlord, the requirement of the petition premises under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act is bonafide.

(2.) THE tenants filed counters stating that they sent the arrears of rent by way of cheques alongwith their reply notices within the time stipulated in the notices sent to them. Therefore, they have not committed any wilful default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlord. According to the tenants, they were directed to deposit the rent in Court by the Rent Controller as per the order passed under Section 8(5) of the Act. They are entrusting the rent to their advocates but their advocates failed to deposit the same in Court. Hence, it was submitted that there is no wilful default in payment of rent as alleged by the landlord. The tenants further submitted that the landlord failed to establish the condition of the building. The landlord also failed to show that he is having any means to put up the new superstructure. The building is not an old one as submitted by the landlord. It was therefore submitted that the requirement of the petition premises under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act is not bonafide. The landlord filed 30 documents. The tenants filed 66 documents. Considering the facts arising in this case, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent for the petitioner period. So also the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the landlord established his bonafide in requiring the petition premises under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, eviction was ordered on both these grounds. However, on appeal, appraising the facts arising in the case, the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the order passed by the Rent Controller on both these grounds and dismissed the petitions for eviction filed by the landlord. It is against that common order, the landlord is in revision before this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent -tenants submitted as under : It is no doubt true that the tenants filed petitions under Section 8(5) of the Act for depositing the rent in Court. Direction was given by the Rent Controller to deposit the rent in Court. According to the tenants, they entrusted the money to their Counsel for depositing the same in Court and their Counsel failed to deposit the same. Therefore, they should not be penalised for the mistake committed by their Counsel. It was further submitted that soon after they received the notices from their landlord, they sent the arrears of rent as claimed in the notices within 15 days of the receipt of the said notices. Therefore, according to them, they did not commit any wilful default in payment of rent as contemplated under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act. According to the learned Counsel, if the notices issued by the landlord should not be considered as two months notices contemplated under Explanation to Section 10(2)(i) of the Act, then their tendering of rent by way of cheques should be taken as tendering rent before filing the petition for eviction and in such a case also they are not liable to be evicted under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act. According to the learned Counsel for the decision reported in S.Sundaram v. V.R. Pattabhiraman, (supra) is supporting the plea putforward by them. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel if the arrears of rent was paid before filing the eviction petitions, then the tenants would escape from the rigour of Section 10(2)(i) of the Act. In support of their contention, they also relied upon certain other decisions rendered by this Court. I have heard the rival submissions.