VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. N VASANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment in RCA. No. 41 of 2006 on the file of III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore is under challenge by the tenant in R. C. O. P. No. 22 of 2004. The said RCA had arisen out an order passed in R. C. O. P. No. 22 of 2004 which was filed under Sections 11 (3) and 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The learned Rent Controller, after due deliberations on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the landlord and the learned counsel appearing for the tenant, has come to a conclusion that even though according to the landlord monthly rent for the petition schedule building is Rs. 1700/-, the admitted rent , according to the tenant is Rs. 1000/-, has directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of admitted rent of Rs. 1000/- from April 2002 to the credit of R. C. O. P. No. 33 of 2004 giving four weeks time from the date of the order ie. , on 24. 11. 2005. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant has preferred an appeal in RCA No. 41 of 2006 challenging the order passed in I. A. No. 50 of 2004 in R. C. O. P. No. 22 of 2004 which was filed under Sections 11 (3) and 11 (4) of the Act. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority , after meticulously going through the orders of the learned Rent Controller and also the averments in I. A. No. 50 of 2004 and the counter filed by the tenant therein, has come to a conclusion that there is no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Rent Controller in the order passed in I. A. No. 50 of 2004 in R. C. O. P. No. 22 of 2004 had dismissed RCA No. 41 of 2006 thereby confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller in I. A. No. 50 of 2004 in R. C. O. P. No. 22 of 2004 which necessitated the tenant to prefer this revision petition.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the landlord and the tenant/revision petitioner are close relatives. Even though, the tenant would contend that there was no lease agreement to show the agreed rent for the petition schedule premises, in the counter filed in I. A. No. 50 of 2004 itself, he has admitted that he had tendered the arrears of rent to the landlord in April 2002 at the rate of Rs. 1000/-p. m. , which was refused to receive by the landlord. Only under such circumstances, the learned Rent Controller has ordered in the application in I. A. No. 50 of 2004 filed under Sections 11 (3) and 11 (4) of the Act directing the tenant to deposit the admitted rent of Rs. 1000/- p. m from April 2002 to the credit of R. C. O. P. No. 33 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif (Rent Controller) Mettupalayam.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relying on a decision reported in K. P. Janaki Ammal and 8 others-v- K. Badrinarayanaiah (1999 (II) CTC 46) would contend that the deposit of arrears of rent cannot be a precondition when the impugned order was under challenge. The facts of the said case are that R. C. O. P. No. 2177 of 1985 was filed by the landlord before the Rent Controller , Madras under Section 4 of the Act. The learned Rent Controller has fixed fair rent at Rs. 6335. 00 per month. The tenant filed R. C. A. No. 360 of 1988 questioning the correctness of the above referred order. The landlord not satisfied with the quantum of fair rent has filed R. C. A. No. 464 of 1988. In the common Judgment filed by the appellant in R. C. A. No. 464 of 1988,the fair rent was fixed as Rs. 7,479. 00 per mensum. Thereafter the landlord filed R. C. O. P. NO. 681 of 1992 against the tenant seeking their eviction stating that they are guilty of wilful default in payment of rent. In the said rent control petition,the landlord filed M. P. No. 879 of 1992 under Sections 11 (3) and 11 (4) of the Act to direct the tenant to pay the arrears of rent quantified at Rs. 3,36,869. 22 at the rate of Rs. 7,479/-p. m. as fixed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in the fair rent proceedings. Only under such circumstances, it has been held in the said ratio decidenti by the learned Judge of this Court that while fair rent proceedings in R. C. A. No. 464 of 1988 itself is under challenge, the rent Controller cannot pass an order in a subsequent R. C. O. P. No. 681 of 1992. In M. P. No. 879 of 1992 which was filed under Sections 11 (3) and 11 (4) of the Act directing the tenant to pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 7479/-p. m. , fixed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA. No. 464 of 1988. So the fact of the said ratio decidenti will not be applicable to the present facts of the case because the learned Rent Controller in an application filed under Sections 11 (3) and 11 (4) of the Act in I. A. No. 50 of 2004 in R. C. O. P. No. 33 of 2004 has directed only arrears of admitted rent from April 2002 at the rate of Rs. 1000/- to be deposited to the credit of R. C. O. P. No. 33 of 2004.