RAMALAKSHMI Vs. K KALIDOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners filed an application for eviction in R.C.O.P.No.45 of 1990 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Thanjavur under Secs.10(2)(ii), 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (18 of 1960). According to the petitioners, the respondent/ tenant committed default for the period from August, 1986 to December, 1990. So, according to them, the tenant, has committed wilful default in payment of rent. THE petition was resisted by the tenant by filing a detailed counter. THE Rent Controller in his order dated 30.8.1991 rejected the same. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.24 of 1991 on the file of the learned Appellate Authority, Thanjavur. THE Appellate Authority also concurred with the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the Appeal. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners have filed the above revision.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the tenant has to pay the rent from August, 1986 to December, 1990. The tenant sent Money Order Ex.B-4 dated 6.11.1986 for a sum of Rs.20 which was refused by the petitioners. Thereafter, he sent another Money Order under Ex.B-3 dated 8.12.1986 for a sum of Rs.57 towards three months rent ending with December, 1986, That was also refused by the petitioners. Thereafter the tenant filed a suit in O.S.No.753 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur seeking a decree for injunction restraining the petitioners from evicting him forcibly. In the said suit in the month of September, 1990, the tenant deposited the arrears towards 46 months rent of a sum of Rs.920 to the credit of O.S.No.753 of 1986. Such a deposit is not disputed.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the tenant has also relied on the decision in Minor Rajakumar, etc. v. N.V.Natarajan, (1994)1 L. W. 340, in support of his submission that depositing the rent in a separate account after refusal of the Money Order by the landlord, cannot be construed as wilful default in payment of rent. Even in the abovesaid decision the tenant had been depositing the amount regularly in the bank and the amount was made available to the landlord wherever required. In that circumstance the learned Judge has held that though the tenant was not resorting to the provisions of the Act with reference to the payment of rent, there cannot be any wilful default, in payment of rent. THE courts have decided the cases on the basis of the conduct of the tenant in paying the amount or depositing the amount. In this case, the Money Order sent under Exs.B-3 and B-4 were refused by the landlords. That was in December, 1986. THEreafter the respondent though alleged that he has been depositing the rent in the bank, in the cross-examination as R.W. 1 he has admitted that he deposited only for six months and even that amount he had withdrawn, and so it cannot be said that the amount deposited by the tenant was available to the petitioners for withdrawal. So, the fact remains that the tenant has deposited the amount only in September, 1990 to the credit of O.S.No.753 of 1986.