ANSAR Vs. V C RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions arise on the following set of facts:- 2. 1. Main R. C. O. P. No. 45/2005 has been filed by the respondent/landlord for eviction of Petitioner/tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings [lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960, [for short,'the Act']. Pending RCOP, landlord filed M. P. No. 200/2005 under Ss. 11 (3) and (4) of the Act to direct the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent from August, 2004 to February, 2005 at rs. 2,500 p. m. and on failure, to stop all further proceedings in RCOP and to pass consequential Order of eviction of the Tenant. On 28. 04. 2005, Rent controller has directed Petitioner to pay rental dues from August, 2004 to march 2005, amounting to Rs. 20 ,000 /-, on or before 09. 06. 2005 [monthly rent @ Rs. 2,500/- p. m. ]. As against that Order, Tenant has preferred R. C. A. No. 626/2005. Confirming the Order of Rent Controller, Appellate authority directed the Tenant to pay to the landlord directly, a sum of Rs. 40 ,000 /- towards rental dues from August, 2004, till November, 2005 on or before 29. 12. 2005. The Appellate Authority directed the parties to appear before the Rent Controller on 30. 12. 2005. 2. 2. Instead of paying rental dues of Rs. 40 ,000 /- directly to the landlord, Tenant has deposited the sum of Rs. 40,000/- into Court on 29. 12. 2005. 2. 3. As against the Order in R. C. A. No. 626/2005, Tenant has preferred C. R. P. No. 195/2006. That CRP was ordered permitting Tenant to withdraw the amount of Rs. 40 ,000 /- deposited to the credit of R. C. O. P. No. 45/2005 and to pay directly to the landlord within a period of two weeks. Tenant was also directed to pay future monthly rent of rs. 2 ,500 /- directly to the landlord on or before 10th of every succeeding month. As against that Order passed in C. R. P. No. 195/2006, tenant has preferred S. L. P. (Civil) No. 8950/2006 before the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed on 05. 06. 2006. Only thereafter, Tenant has paid the amount of Rs. 40 ,000 /- to the landlord on 08. 06. 2006. 2. 4. Holding it as non-compliance of conditional Order in m. P. No. 200/2005, Rent Controller dismissed that application and stopped all further proceedings and ordered eviction. Against the consequential Order of stopping all further proceedings and allowing M. P. No. 200/2005, Tenant has preferred R. C. A. Nos. 61 and 62 of 2006. 2. 5. After careful consideration of the matter, by an elaborate Order, Appellate Authority has held that payment into Court is not in compliance with the Order passed by the High Court in C. R. P. No. 195/2006 and confirmed the order of Rent Controller.

(2.) ASSAILING the impugned Order in M. P. No. 200/2005 and the consequential Order of eviction, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that when Court has accepted the deposit, Order of Court was properly complied with. It was further submitted that in view of the pending suits between the Respondent and erstwhile landlord Pachiammal, Tenant has already paid rent to Pachiammal. Drawing attention of the Court to Sec. 2 (6), it was submitted that landlord includes erstwhile landlord and when Pachiammal continues to be the landlord, it cannot be said that deposit of amount, rental dues into the court would amount to non-compliance of Court Order. The learned Counsel also submitted that Tenant has been pursuing remedy in various fora and time taken by him ought to have been condoned as per Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) SEC. 11 (1) is to the effect that no Tenant against whom an application has been made by a landlord shall be entitled to contest the application before the Controller on the application unless he has paid or pays to the landlord or deposits with the Controller or Appellate Authorities as the case may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of the building upto the date of payment of deposit and continues to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect to the building until the termination of the proceedings before the Controller or the Appellate Authority.