S. RATHINAMMAL Vs. AYYAVU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision is filed against an order made by the Appellate Authority under Act XVIII of 1960(here in after referred to as 'the Act'), dismissing the petition to direct the deposit of the monthly rents during the pendency of G.M.A No. 28 of 1978 filed before it by the tenant. The Court below had relied upon a decision of this Court in Abdul Azeez Khan v. Appachi Gounder : (1957) 2 MLJ 513 to hold that, when there is a denial of title of the landlord, there could be no direction for depositing the arrears of rent and the monthly rent till it is finally decided that there is the relationship of landlord and tenant or not.

(2.) LANDLORD filed an application under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(ii) and 11(4) of the Act for eviction of the tenant -respondent herein on the ground that he had committed wilful default for the period from 1st June, 1965 onwards till the date of petition. In the petition, she had claimed that the tenant had taken up the premises for the purpose of conducting a Tea stall at the rate of Rs. 10 per month. For the period from 1st June, 1965 to 1st September, 1967, the tenant committed default in the payment of monthly rents which comes to Rs 270. The landlord had filed S.C. No. 834 of 1967 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court. Salem which was decreed on 31st October, 1967 and the decree amount had not been paid. No rent had been paid even after 1st September, 1967. The tenant is therefore liable to pay, at the rate of Rs. 20 per month in case of default. Hence she had prayed for eviction of the tenant for non -payment of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1,807 as on the date of the petition. The tenant remained absent and the petition was ordered by the Rent Controller by holding that wilful default pleaded is established and therefore ordered eviction by order dated 5th August, 1978 Landlady filed Exhibits A -7 to A -16, which are demands made by the Municipality for payment of taxes, in order to prove that the landlady is the owner of the building.

(3.) IN the counter -affidavit filed in I.A. No. 81 of 1978, the tenant had stated that the superstructure belonged to him and that the landlady refused to receive rent for the site when he tendered rents through money order and that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction over the matter because the lease is only in respect of the vacant site. He further added: