SHANMUGA SUNDARA KONAR Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent landlord filed the petition in R.C.O.P.No.38 of 1994 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Tirunelveli to evict the tenants petitioners. Pending the R.C.O.P., the respondent filed an application in I.A.No.122 of 1994 under Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, on the ground that the petitioners had not paid the rent in respect of the premises in question. THE Rent Controller directed the tenants/petitioners to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.100 per month from the date of the petition, till August, 1994 and to pay the said amount on or before 22.3.1998. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed appeal in R.C.A.No.30 of 1995 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority/Sub-Judge, Tirunelveli. Before the appellate authority, the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller was questioned saying that after conversion of the Tirunelveli Municipality into the Corporation the Act has not been extended by a notification under the Act 18 of 1960. So, the said Act cannot be made applicable to the premises in question situate in the Corporation. THE Appellate Authority rejected the contention of the tenants and dismissed the appeal. Still aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the above revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the premises in question is situated of Thimmarajapuram village which was subsequently included in Tirunelveli Municipality, thereby the said Act was extended to the said village. Though the learned counsel tried to submit that even before issuing the notification with respect to the application of the provisions of the said Act to the said village the said R.C.O.P. was filed. It was not substantiated by giving relevant date with respect to the filing of the said R.C.O.P.

(3.) THE tenant is given one month time to deposit the rent upto date.