KUPPUSWAMI CHETTIAR Vs. LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions arise out of the common order passed by the Appellate Authority (VII Small Causes Court, Madras) confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and also stopping further proceedings and consequently ordering eviction by granting three months time in all these cases.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary for the disposal of these revision petitions are briefly as follows : These revision-petitioners became tenants of different portions the premises bearing door No. 49, Perumal Mudali Street, Kondithope, Madras, under one K. Bangaru Chettiar. The said K. Bangaru Chettiar died on 27.10.1981. Thereafter Rajammal styling herself as the widow of Bangaru Chettiar was collecting rents from the tenants. She died on 9.10.1984. Even during her life time the respondent herein, namely, Lakshmi filed a suit in forma pauperis for recovery of possession in O.P. No. 4288 of 1984 and during the pendency of the suit, Rajammal died on 9.10.1984. Thereafter the respondent herein issued notice to the tenants calling upon them to pay rent to her. The notice is dated 10th October, 1984. The respondent was appointed as receiver on 19.3.1986 in Application No. 2772 of 1985 by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The tenants were added as parties in that application was in a suit filed by one Saraswathi Ammal alias Sarasmmal claiming herself as the third wife of the deceased Bangaru Chettiar. By virtue of the order of appointment, the respondent is entitled to institute proceedings against the petitioners herein under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for recovery of rent and for eviction. She has also filed petition in R.C.O.P. Nos. 617 to 828 of 1985 on the file of the IX Small Causes Court, Madras, against the petitioner herein on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent from 1.10.1984 to 31.12.1985 and on the ground of wilful denial of title. In the counter, it is stated by the petitioners herein that they have no objection to deposit the rent or pay to the receiver as and when appointed by the High Court of Madras. But, after the appointment of the respondent as receiver, they did not pay the rent. The respondent filed a petition under Section 11(4) of the Act to stop further proceedings and order eviction, on the ground that they have not paid the arrears of rent. Even though they are willing to deposit the rent into court, they had not deposited the rent. The Rent Controller by his order dated 10.3.1986 directed the tenants, who are the petitioners herein, to deposit the rent into court on or before 24.3.86, falling which, it was made clear, that all further proceedings will be stopped and eviction ordered. In spite of the order, they did not choose to deposit the rent. Hence, on 25.3.1986, since they failed to comply with the conditional order passed by the Rent Controller, eviction was ordered. Aggrieved by the same they preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. Nos. 446 to 478 to 484 and 503 of 1986. The respondent also filed applications under Section 11(4) of the Act on 2.7.1986 alleging that they have not deposited the arrears of rent and that they are not entitled to prosecute the appeals. She contended that the appeals have to be dismissed and eviction is to be ordered. In the said applications the appellate Authority came to the conclusion that in view of the order of appointment of the respondent as receiver, it is not open to the petitioners to deny her title and they are bound to pay the arrears of rent. Further, even accepting the payment of rent by them to one Annakili, the payments from 1.10.1984 to 1.2.1986 can be decided in the main R.C.O.Ps. after fullfledged enquiry. But, from the date of appointment of the respondent as receiver, there is nothing to show that the petitioners have made any payment of amount, and on the other hand from the very allegation in the revision petitions they are liable to pay rent from 1.3.1986 to 31.12.1986. As regards the rate of rent, it is not disputed. The Rent Controller has mentioned about the rate and at the said rate each of the petitioners was directed to pay the arrears for the above period within 23.2.1987. The said order was passed on 20.1.1987. The petitions were directed to be called on 24.2.1987. The petitioners have filed petitions for extension of time on 23.2.1987 and they deposited only 1/4th of the amount. They did not choose to pay the arrears as directed by the Appellate Authority and hence the further proceedings were stopped and eviction was ordered under Section 11(4) of the Act granting three months time for vacating the premises, on 2.4.1987. Aggrieved by the same, these revisions are filed.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the mere denial of right will not prevent the landlady from filing the petitions. The learned counsel drew my attention to the proceedings under which the respondent was appointed as receiver, in Application No. 2772 of 1985 on 19.3.1986, wherein these petitioners were parties. As per the said orders, the respondent was appointed as receiver to collect rents of the properties from the tenants regularly and deposit the same into court to the credit of the applicant once in three months. The tenants who are parties to the same cannot plead ignorance of the same. According to the respondent, the tenants set up one Annakili to file a petition for letters of Administration in C.P. No. 9 of 1986 on the file of the High Court, Madras, as if she is the sister of the said Bangaru Chettiar. She also filed an Application No. 966/986 for permitting her to collect rents from the tenants without disclosing the appointment of the respondent already on 19.3.1986 in Application No. 2772 of 1985. The said petition was ordered. The respondent herein filed a petition to suspend the said order and set aside the same. Accordingly the said order was suspended on 28.4.1986 and finally the Application No. 966 of 1986 filed by Annakili was dismissed and her appointment as receiver was set aside, on the ground that the respondent herein was appointed as receiver already by this Court on an earlier application. Hence, the said order appointing her as receiver is in force and a Division Bench of this court consisting of V. Ramaswami, J. (as he then was) and Bellie, J., upheld the order appointing the respondent as receiver for collection of rent and to take proceedings for eviction of execution of any decree, in C.M.P. No. 8184 of 1987 in O.S.A. No. 70 of 1987 on 2.7.1987. Hence, it is too much for the tenants to contend still that the respondent has to no locus standi to file the petitions and ask for eviction on the grounds of wilful denial of title and will default in payment of rent. The learned counsel submitted that for filing an eviction petition, the petitioner need not be an owner of the property in the sense of having exclusive title to him and it would suffice if he is entitled to receive the rent from the tenant in occupation. In support of his contention, he drew my attention to the decision of this court in Devadoss v. Velu, 9(1984) 1 M.L.J. 301. That was also a case wherein an application was filed under Section 11(4) of the Act and the landlord's title was denied, it was held :