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 of 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 hereself 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 informa 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 10-10-1984. 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 Sarasammal 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 petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.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 S.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 24-3-1986, failing 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, 478 to 484 and 503 of 1986. THE respondent also filed applications under S.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 were 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 petitioner have filed petitions for extension of time on 23-2-1987 and they deposited only l/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 S.11 (4) of the Act granting three months time for vacating the premises, on 2-4-1987. Aggrieved by the same, these revisions are fileld.

(3.) THEREFORE, it is clear from the definition itself that a receiver himself is a landlord and he is entitled to receive rent and he is entitled to maintain the application. Next, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that a simple denial of title of the landlord by the tenant cannot take away the jurisdiction of the statutory authorities to invoke S.11 and relied on the decision of Sathiaev, J., in Rathinammal v. Ayyavu, (1980)1 M.L.J. 296 wherein it was held