S SEETHALAKSHMI Vs. B MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urges four contentions in this revision petition. The necessary facts are: The main petition for eviction has been filed by the respondent on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The petitioner contended that the claim of the landlord is not correct as he has already paid rent upto April, 1990 and there were arrears only for June and July. The Rent Controller passed an order under Sec. 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 16,000 payable from September, 1989 to december, 1990 and to continue to pay the subsequent arrears. That order was passed on 9. 4. 1991. Time was granted upto 2. 5. 1991. On 2. 5. 1991, the amount was not deposited. On 3. 5. 1991 counsel prayed for extension of time. In the application for extension of time, the prayer was to grant extension for payment of admitted arrears. The Court passed an order that time was extended upto 11. 6. 1991. The amount directed to be deposited by the court was not deposited even till 11. 6. 1991. Hence, an order of eviction was passed by the rent Controller. Against that order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner herein. The appeal was dismissed and the aggrieved tenant has filed this revision.

(2.) THE first contention is that the order granting extension of time till 11. 6. 1992 meant only the deposit of the admitted arrears and time was granted till 11. 6. 1991 to pay the admitted arrears. Reliance is placed on the prayer in the petition and the order passed thereon. THEre is no merit in this contention. When the earlier order passed by the court specifically directed the tenant to pay a particular amount being the arrears within a particular time, the tenant ought to have paid that amount, but he prayed for extension. While doing so, he-had cleverly included in the prayer the words'payment of admitted arrears'. But the court in its order, did not grant the said prayer. THE court only extended the time till 11. 6. 1991. THE order read as follows: 'notice given. Heard. Time extended till 1. 6. 1991. Petition allowed.' Now, it is contended that when the court allowed the petition it meant that the petitioner was permitted to pay the admitted arrears before 11. 6. 1991.'the petitioner is really trying to be too clever and trying to play with the court. Without there being a petition to review or to modify the earlier order passed on 9. 4. 1991 directing the tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 16 ,00 0 being the arrears payable for September, 1989 to December, 1990, there could not have been any order by the court directing the tenant to pay only the admitted arrears of rent without modifying the earlier order or reviewing the earlier order. In the absence of such a petition either for modifying or reviewing the earlier order, the contention that the tenant was permitted to pay the admitted arrears of rent by order dated 3. 5. 1991 before 11. 6. 1991 cannot be accepted. THE Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the said contention.

(3.) THESE revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed. .