G SELVAM Vs. B RAJYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority cum VIII Judge of Small Causes Court, Chennai in M. P. No. 17 of 2002 in R. C. A. No. 294 of 2001 filed against the order passed by the Rent Controller cum XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M. P. No. 566 of 2000 in R. C. O. P. No. 1082 of 1998, the revision petitioner/tenant viz. , one G. Selvam has filed this revision petition.

(2.) FOR the purpose of disposal of this revision, the following background based upon the material facts have to be taken into consideration. The landlady Rajyalakshmi filed R. C. O. P. No. 1082 of 1998 on the grounds of wilful default and requirement for own occupation. While it was pending, the landlady filed petition in M. P. No. 566 of 2000 under section 11 (4) of the (Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act praying therewith that the tenant has no right to contest the main R. C. O. P without paying the arrears of rent. Consequently, the Rent Controller dismissed the said M. P. No. 566 of 2000 on the basis that wilful default cannot be attributed against the tenant inasmuch as the landlady was having advance of Rs. 50,000/= and the arrears from February 1999 to October 2000 at the rate of Rs. 2220/= per month for 21 months comes to Rs. 46,620/= only and after deducting the said amount and one month's rent as advance, a sum of Rs. 1160/= still remains with the landlady by way of advance amount.

(3.) AGGRIEVED against such dismissal order, the landlady filed R. C. A. No. 294 of 2001 before the appellate authority by saying that Rs. 50,000/= was not an advance amount and it was given by the tenant as security deposit and it would be returnable only at the time of vacating the premises by the tenant and therefore no question of adjusting the rents in the advance amount arises and consequently, there is wilful default and arrears of rent and the dismissal order passed by the Rent Controller should be set aside. While the said R. C. A was pending, again, the landlady filed M. P. No. 396 of 2001 in R. C. A. No. 294 of 2001 under section 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act praying there with that the tenant has no right to contest the R. C. A without paying the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 64,380/= being arrears upto June 2001 and thereby the proceedings should be stopped and eviction should be ordered. Consequently, the appellate authority, after considering the contentions of either side, has come to the conclusion that even after adjusting the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 37,740/=, still a sum of Rs. 12,260/= remains to be paid and the said sum of Rs. 12,260/= was ordered to be deposited on or before 20. 9. 2001 and consequently, the matter was adjourned to 21. 9. 2001 by the appellate authority and since the said amount was not deposited within the time, he allowed in M. P. No. 396 of 2001 under section 11 (4) and however, he inadvertently passed the consequential order in R. C. A. No. 294 of 2001 to the effect that the R. C. A is dismissed. Again the very same appellate authority, amended the same by saying that R. C. A. No. 294 of 2001 is allowed and two months time was given to the tenant to vacate the premises.