LAWS(MAD)-1994-11-105

R KEMPAMMAL Vs. K ARAVINDAKSHAN

Decided On November 10, 1994
R. KEMPAMMAL Appellant
V/S
K. ARAVINDAKSHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision filed under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1960 as amended up to date is being canvassed against the legality, propriety and correctness of the fair and final order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority made in R.C.A.No.90 of 1985 dated 20th December, 1988 confirming in toto the fair and final order passed by the learned Rent Controller made in R.C.O.P.No.103 of 1984 on 3rd July, 1985.

(2.) BRIEF facts as culled out from the case records, which led to the revision may be extracted as hereunder: The residential premises situated in the town of Ootacamund in Nilgiris District was under the tenancy occupation on a monthly rental of Rs.85 payable on the first of every succeeding English calendar month regularly to the landlady who is the revision petitioner herein. Since January, 1978, the rental has not been paid though it was claimed at the rate of Rs.150 a suit in O.S.No.405 of 1979 was filed by the revision petitioner herein before the civil court on 17.11.1979 claiming arrears at the rate of Rs. 150 for a period of about 22 months. Even after the said suit, since the respondent had not paid the rent, R.C.O.P.No.103 of 1984 was filed on 18.11.1980 under Sec.10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as the "Buildings Act" claiming arrears at the rate of Rs. 150 per month for the period commencing from 1.1.1978 till 31.10.1980 for 34 months. The respondent resisted the said application on the ground that the agreed rental for the premises was only Rs.85 and not at the rate of Rs.150 and that the landlady was in the habit of receiving the rentals as and when occasion arises in a lump sum and not every month regularly and that since she filed a suit O.S.No.405 of 1979, which was pending disposal, he could not pay the rent to the landlady and that therefore, there was no wilful default on his part and prayed for the dismissal of the petition for eviction.

(3.) ANOTHER significant aspect made available in this case is that there is no controversy among the parties herein with regard to the commencement of the period of arrears, namely from 1.1.1978. It was the specific case of the respondent/ tenant that he has paid the rent till the end of December, 1977 and that thereafter, the rent accrues. The plea of the revision petitioner coincides with the plea of the tenant that the rental accrues from 1.1.1978 onwards. So also, the claim made by the revision petitioner/ landlady that on the date of filing the present rent control petition during November, 1980. The period of rental accrued was 34 months, has not at all been controverted or denied either in the evidence before the court or by pleadings by and on behalf of the respondent/ tenant. Admittedly, the tenant has not paid the rent for a period of 34 months. The explanation offered by him seems to have been that since the landlady claimed the rental at an exorbitant rate of Rs.150 per month and since filed a suit O.S.No.405 of 1979 he was not in a position to pay the rent and that therefore, in such a course and mode the arrears had accumulated. This plea, undoubtedly, cannot at all be accepted for the simple reasoning that the tenant has admitted that he has paid all the rent till the end of December, 1977 and for the subsequent period, he has not paid the rent. Of course, it may be true, that the landlady had claimed at the rate of Rs.150 per month. Assuming for a moment that she has been claiming at an exorbitant rate for the obvious reasons known to her, if the tenant has been paying at a lesser rate of Rs.85 then to controvert or expose the real colour and attitude of the landlady, the respondent/ tenant would have taken all the necessary steps as provided under the Act, at the rate he has been originally paying to her, namely, he ought to have sent the amount by Money Order every month, which if refused, should have sent a letter or notice calling upon her to specify the name of a Scheduled Bank so as to deposit the same, and on her refusal to do so, he could have remitted under Sec.8(5)of the Buildings Act and admittedly none of the abovesaid options have been exercised by the respondent/ tenant herein. On the other hand, it seems that he has been squatting upon the rental premises conveniently holding the rental in his pocket to the very detriment of the landlady, which would mean, the statutory obligation and duty cast upon the respondent by the Statute has been totally ignored by him and which alone, in my respectful view, landed the tenant into deep trouble. Therefore, there is every force and matrix in the arguments advanced on behalf of the revision petitioner through the Bar.