SAKTHI AND COMPANY Vs. DESIGACHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent is the landlord, who filed a petition under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for fixation of fair rent. The agreed rent was Rs. 425/- per mensem. The Rent Controller by his order dated 30.9.1994 fixed the fair rent at Rs. 2642/- per mensem. The aggrieved tenant, who is the petitioner before me, has filed the appeal which is pending as R.C.A. No. 136 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, who is the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent filed I.A. No. 100 of 1995 under Section 11(4) of the Act for a direction to deposit arrears of rent on the basis of the difference between the agreed rent and the fair rent. According to the respondent a sum of Rs. 1,44,105/- was due from the petitioner herein. The petition was contested by the petitioner herein, but the Principal Subordinate Judge has passed an order directing the petitioner to deposit 1/3 of the difference between the original rent viz. Rs. 425/- and the enhanced rent of Rs. 2642/- into court from the date of R.C.O.P. viz., 28.4.1989, on or before 11.1.1996. That is with regard to the period prior to his passing the order for the future period, the direction was to deposit one half of the difference every month into Court. The petitioner herein made a deposit of the arrears as directed by the Principal Subordinate Judge. That was recorded by the Principal Subordinate Judge on 18.1.1996 and the petition was closed on that basis.

(2.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant challenging the validity of the order passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge. It is contended that the petition before the Appellate Authority was not maintainable as Section 11 would not apply to the case. Under Section 11 of the Act, a petition can be filed only when application for eviction has been made against a tenant by a landlord under Section 10 of the Act or an appeal has been preferred by the tenant under Section 23 of the Act. The Section does not make any reference to any other cases, and, therefore, it is confined by its express language, only to two situations. It follows, therefore, that the application under Section 11 of the Act could not be maintained in a proceeding arising out of a petition for fixing fair rent under Section 4 of the Act.

(3.) IN R. Radha v. C.R. Govindarajulu, 1978(91) Mad. L.W. 443 : AIR 1978 Madras 399, another Division Bench had to consider whether an application under Section 11 could be maintained during the pendency of a revision petition in this Court. Holding that such a petition was not maintainable, the bench said as follows :-