P. LACHIRAM Vs. K.N. KUMARESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no error of jurisdiction in the order. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority went into the question in detail and found as to what was the amount payable by the tenant and after giving him sufficient opportunity to pay or to deposit the rent as determined (in this casein was not even disputed), the Rent Controller passed a final order directing the petitioner -tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building because of non -compliance. It is as against the concurrent findings of fact and the ultimate conclusions arrived at by the two Tribunals that the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

(2.) A proceeding under Section 11(4) of the Act is intended to accelerate the long -drawn proceedings tinder the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. As eviction is possible in a case where the tenant commits wilful default in the payment of rents and particularly, after the recent amendment in 1973 explaining wilful default as meaning non -payment or tender of rent after the issue of a notice calling for such payment of rent by the landlord, the importance of Section 11(4) has to be brought to light and in its true light. Section 11(4) is, therefore, intended to make the tenant alert during the entirety of the proceedings and be conscious of his obligations and statutory duties in the matter of payment of rents. Even here, the Legislature has provided that the Rent Controller in a case where an application under Section 11(4) is taken by the landlord should enquire into the dispute as to the amount of rent to be' paid by the tenant and make such enquiry as he deems necessary and summarily determine the rent so to be paid or deposited. Such enquiry should not be long -drawn as in the case with the main proceedings. They are intended to be summary and they have to be disposed of at least within four weeks from the date when such applications are filed. This would be therefore, a directive to the lower Court to see that applications under Section 11(4) are heard and decided within two months from the date of presentation of such applications. There is absolutely no justification to keep such applications beyond such time. This is an observation to the Courts below, so that hereafter at least there may be an accelerated disposal of the rent control matters.

(3.) HAVING regard to the dates to which the matters have been adjourned from time to time this Court has been constrained to pass the above observation in the nature of a directive to the Courts below in the matter of disposal of application under Section 11(4).