K.V. RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. G.K. RAJARATHINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed by the landlord against the order of the appellate authority in R.C.A. No. 700 of 1986, reversing the order of the Rent Controller, X Court of Small Causes, Madras in M.P. No. 468 of 1986 in R.C.O.P. No. 809 of 1986. The landlord filed the petition for eviction against the respondent under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the landlord, the tenant is in default for eight months from 1.9.1985 to 30.4.1986. The tenant filed a counter, contesting the same. The petitioner filed an application under Section 11(4) of the Act for passing an order, directing the tenant to deposit the amount of arrears of rent as claimed by him. The said application was contested by the tenant on the ground that he had paid an advance of Rs. 3,500/-, out of which he has already requested the landlord to adjust the arrears of rent for the period mentioned in the petition, by his express notice, marked as Ex.R.3. The Rent Controller overruled the objection of the tenant and held that the question can be gone into only in the main proceedings and directed the tenant to make the deposit, as prayed for by the landlord.

(2.) ON appeal, the appellate authority has taken the view that under Section 7 of the Act, the landlord is entitled to claim an advance of only one month rent and in this case, the landlord having received a sum of Rs. 3,500/- by way of advance was bound to adjust the excess advance towards the arrears of amount in view of the notice issued by the tenant. Consequently, the appellate authority held that there was no need for deposit under Section 11(4) of the Act and allowed the appeal, dismissing the application filed by the landlord.

(3.) IT is next argued that under the section, what is prohibited is only receipt of premium or other like sum in addition to the agreed rent, which is non-refundable. According to learned counsel there is no prohibition against receiving advance rent. For this purpose, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of a single Judge of this Court in Abdul Rahim v. State of Madras, 1962(1) MLJ 272. That case arose under Madras Act XXV of 1949. Considering the provisions of Sections 6(2)(a) and 16(1) of the said Act, the learned single Judge held that the word "premium" is used in contradistinction to the word "rent', which is normally payable periodically or on specific occasions. The learned single Judge held that an amount which is received under a lease, not as a price but as money refundable on the happening of a stipulated event, cannot be held to be a premium and that premium as ordinarily understood is a lump sum payment made out-right as price for a lease. The learned Judge also held that the expression "other like sum" has to be understood in the light of the doctrine of ejusdem generis and only a sum which has some resemblance to what is comprehended by the word "premium" that will come within the scope of the words "other like sum". In fact, it is seen that the case arose on a prosecution under Section 16(1) read with Section 6(2)(a) of the said Act XXV of 1949.