P GOVINDARAJU Vs. S P KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three revision petitions arise out of a petition for eviction viz. , R. C. O. P. No. 284 of 1987 filed by the respondents on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and causing damage to the property. When the petition was pending, the landlord filed an application under Sec. 11 of the Act for a direction to the tenant to pay the entire arrears of rent, which according to him amounted to Rs. 24,320 being the rent due for 38 months from May, 1986 to June, 1989. The case of the tenant was that he had paid the property tax regularly and he had in fact paid in excess than what was due from him. Under the agreement of tenancy, the landlord was liable to pay a sum of rs. 988. 50 by way of property tax and the tenant had agreed to pay any increase in the property tax. Taking that into account, the Rent Controller deducted a sum of Rs. 8,896. 50 from the total amount claimed by the landlord and directed the tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 15,425. 50 within a particular time. The petitioner did not comply with the order but chose to file an appeal before the appellate Authority challenging the same. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction as the tenant had not complied with the order directing him to pay the amount. Against the order of eviction, the tenant filed R. C. A. No. 9 of 1991. The appeal against the order in the application was numbered as R. C. A. No. 8 of 1991. Pending the appeal, the landlords filed an application for admission of a document as additional evidence in I. A. No. 347 of 1991. The said application was allowed and the document was admitted as additional evidence. Pending the appeal, the landlords filed an application I. A. No. 332 of 1991 under Sec. 11 of the Act. An order was passed thereon directing the tenant to pay the arrears. The tenant challenged that order in a revision petition in thiscourtmc. R. P. No. 2296of 1993. In that revision petition an order was passed on 17. 1. 1994 directing the tenant to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 on or before 17. 3. 1994 and also directing him to pay the future rent from March, 1994 onwards. The tenant paid the said amount of Rs. 20,000 and continued to pay the future rent.

(2.) THE main appeals before the Appellate Authority were taken up and they were dismissed. THE Appellate Authority held that the tenant not having complied with the order passed under Sec. 11 of the Act by the Rent controller, was liable to be evicted and the appeals without making a deposit of the arrears of rent were not sustainable. THE aggrieved tenant has now preferred these three revision petitions. C. R. P. No. 2875 of 1994 is against r. C. A. No. 8 of 1991 which was in turn against the order passed by the Rent Controller under Sec. 11 of the Act. C. R. PNo. 2876 of 1994 is against the order made in r. C. A. No. 9 of 1991 which was against the order of eviction passed by the Rent controller in the main R. C. O. P. C. R. P. No. 2877 of 1994 is against the order admitting the additional evidence in the appeal in I. A. No. 347 of 1991.

(3.) IN the result, all the three revision petitions fail and they are dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. .