SHAHUL HAMEED Vs. RASOOL BIVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON Order The landlady filed petitions for eviction against five tenants on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The Rent Controller ordered eviction in the case of all the five tenants. All the five tenants preferred appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The tenants also filed Civil Miscellaneous Petitions for stay of the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. While admitting the appeals, the Rent Control Appellate Authority granted stay of eviction order in the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, on condition that the tenants should deposit the arrears of rent, failing which the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordered that the stay granted snail stand vacated. According to the landlady, the tenants deposited rent upto March 1984 and they did not deposit the rent for the subsequent periods. Therefore, according to the landlady, the tenants are in arrears of rent from April 1984 till the date of filing of the petitions under S. 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973. Thus, according to the landlady, five months rent is payable in the case of each of the tenant. The petitions filed under S. 11(4) of the Act was contested by the tenants. According to the tenants, they have paid the house tax for the petition premises and the same is adjustable towards arrears of rent. This plea was not accepted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Thus, invoking the provisions of S. 11(4) of the Act, the Rent Control Appellate Authority vacated the stay granted in the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions and dismissed the appeals filed by the tenants. It is against these orders, the tenants are in revision before this court. Each tenant filed two revisions. One against the order passed in the petition filed under S. 11(4) of the Act and another against the order passed in the main appeal. Thus, there are ten revisions filed before this court.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/tenants submitted as under:? THE Rent Control Appellate Authority was not correct in in-yoking the provisions of S. 11(4) of the Act. When the Rent Control Appellate Authority invoked the provisions of S. 11(4) of the Act, the Authority ought to have given sufficient time for the tenants to deposit the arrears of rent, if any. If such arrears, as directed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority was not deposited, then it is open to the Rent Control Appellate Authority to terminate proceedings, as contemplated under S. 11(4) of the Act. In the instant case, no such opportunity was given to the tenants. THErefore, the orders passed under S. 11(4) of the Act are not sustainable. It is the case of the tenants that they have paid the house tax, which the landlady failed to pay and therefore the amounts paid by way of house tax are adjustable towards the arrears of rent. If such adjustment is made, there would not be any arrears of rent payable by the tenants. In order to support her contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision reported in John v. Brumgar (1985 II MLJ 357). THErefore, according to the learned counsel, since no time was granted to deposit the arrears of rent, as per the provisions of S. 11(2) of the Act, and since the tenants paid the house tax, it is adjustable towards the arrears of rent, and provisions of S. 11(4) of the Act cannot be invoked and the appeals filed before the Rent Control Appellate Authority cannot be dismissed.

(3.) IN the present case, the tenants committed wilful default and hence the petitions for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent were filed. The Rent Controller ordered eviction in each of the case of the tenants. Before filing the Rent Control Appeals, the tenants have not deposited the arrears, of rent, till the date of filing of the appeals. When the tenants came forward with petitions for stay of order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, the Rent Control Appellate Authority granted stay, on condition that the tenants should deposit the arrears of rent in court. With regard to the rate of rent, there is no dispute. IN furtherance of the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenants deposited the rent till March, 1984. From April, 1984, for the period of five months, the tenants failed to deposit the rent in court. The landlady came forward with the petition filed under S. 11(4) of the Act the tenants filed counters and contested such petitions filed by the landlady. After contest, the Rent Control Appellate Authority found that the tenants failed to deposit the rent in court, as directed by him. Therefore, the Rent Control Appellate Authority complied with the provisions contained under S. 11(2) of the Act, before invoking the provisions of S. 11(4) of the Act. IN fact, according to S. 11(1) of the Act, no appeal is entertainable before the deposit of arrears of rent is made. By passing an order S. 11(4) of the Act, the Rent Control Appellate Authority terminated the proceedings and dismissed the appeals filed by the tenant. A careful consideration of the orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority will go to show that the orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority under S. 11(4) of the Act and dismissing the appeals filed by the tenants, appears to be in order. IN (1985 II MLJ 357), in the case of A. John v. Bhumgara while considering the provisions of S. 11(4) of the Act, this court field as under:?