GOPALA KRISHNA M Vs. N G VEERABHADRASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a C.R.P. filed by the tenants of a building situate in Elueu town. R.C.C. No.4/89 was filed by the landlords for eviction of the tenants. Pending the R.C.C., a petition was filed under Section 11(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking for an order to stop all further proceedings and to direct the tenants to put the landlords in possession of the premises. This petition was filed on the ground that the tenants (petitioners herein) had not paid the rent from 1-3-1988 onwards. That means by the date of filing the R.C.C., the tenants committed default in payment of rent due for 10 months commencing from 1-3-1988 to 31-12-1988. Even subsequent to the filing of the petitioner, the tenants did not pay the rents for the months of January, February and March, 1989. Hence the petition was filed under Section 11(4) of the Act, on 10-4-89. The landlords claim that the rent for the premises is Rs.200/- per month.

(2.) The petitioners-tenants, in their counter filed on 11-7-89, contended that the rent for the premises was only Rs.50/- per month and that the landlords refused to receive the rent when they offered to pay the same in the month of December, 1988. The learned Rent Controller, Eluru held that the rent for the premises is Rs.200/- but not Rs.50/- as claimed by the tenants. The petition was allowed by the Rent Controller and time was granted for deposit of rent by 1-2-90. The time was extended till 9-3-1990. Meanwhile, the petitioners filed appeal and, by an order dated 5-3-90 in I.A.347/90, stay of operation of the order in RCC 4/89 was granted. The Subordinate Judge, Eluru (Rent Control Appellate Authority) held that even the admitted rent of Rs.50/- was not paid from December 1988 to July 1989 i.e., after filing of the petition. The appellate authority proceeded on the footing that the document Ex.A-2 being a disputed one, that need not be taken into account at that stage and therefore concluded that the tenants should have deposited the admitted rent of Rs.50/- per month. The appellate Court further observed that the tenants ought to have deposited the arrears of rent before filing the appeal and the appeal ought not to have been numbered as the admitted rent upto the date of filing of the appeal was not paid. While dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Court directed that the tenants have to put the landlords in possession of the building within one month from the date of the order.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. E.S. Ramachandra Murthy submits that the assumption of the Appellate Court that the rent at Rs.50/- per month from December 1988 to July 1989 was not paid by the petitioners-tenants is not correct. The learned Counsel states that on 12-7-1989, a sum of Rs.350/-was deposited into Court by way of Challan towards the rent from December 1988 to June 1989. It is submitted that the rent upto date has been paid on various dates thereafter. It is seen from the statement furnished by the learned Counsel that the admitted rent of Rs.750/- for July 1989 to September 1990 was depsoited on 6-11-90. Prior to that, seven months' rent was deposited on 12-7-1989. The learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. T. Veerabhadraiah therefore points out that the rent for seven months was paid long after R.C.C. was filed, for more than a year thereafter, the petitioners defaulted in paying the rent and it was only on 6-11-1990. 15 months' rent was deposited at a time. In view of these irregular payments made by the tenants even during the pendency of the R.C.C. and the appeal and in view of the failure to pay the rents within the time stipulated in the order of the Rent Controller or at the time of filing the appeal, the petitioners have become liable for eviction under Sec.11(4) of the Act. This argument is countered by the learned Counsel for the petitioners contending that in the absence of an application made under sub-section (3) to determine the amount of rent to be paid or deposited, sub-section (4) itself has no application. Further, it is contended that the operation of the order of the Rent Controller having been stayed by the Appellate authority, the petitioners need not have paid the rents as per the directions of the Rent Controller. It is also submitted that the Appellate Court did not fix any time limit for the payment of the arrears of rent which were due till then and in the absence of any such prescription of time limit, the provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) do not come into play. I do not find any merit in the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. I am of the view that this is the clearest case where sub-section (4) is attracted notwithstanding the subtle distinction sought to be drawn by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The contention that an application under sub-sec.(3) has hot been filed by the landlords seeking resolution of the dispute as to rent, does not make any material difference to the facts of the case. Merely because there is some dispute with regard to the quantum of rent payable, it does not absolve the tenants from the responsibility to pay the admitted rents. No doubt, the Rent Controller decided that the rent payable is Rs.200/- whereas the Appellate Court proceeded on the basis that the rent payable is Rs.50/- only. It cannot possibly be contended that until and unless the dispute is resolved in appeal and the Appellate authority grants time for the payment of rent so determined, the liability to pay even the admitted rent will get suspended. An interpretation which places a premium on the failure of the tenant to discharge the minimal obligation of paying atleast the admitted rent, cannot be placed on Sec.ll. Under sub-section (1) of Sec.11, it is the bounden duty of the tenant to continue to pay or deposit the rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building until the termination of the proceedings before the Controller or the Appellate authority, as the case may be. Sub-section (2) enjoins that the deposit of rent under sub-section (1) shall be made within the time and in the manner prescribed. No doubt, there is no prescription in the Rules as to the time within which the rent is to be deposited. But the word 'prescribed' having regard to the context can be taken as the prescription by the Rent Controller or the prescription by the statutory provision itself. Here, the Rent Controller by his order dated 22-1-1990 granted time for the deposit of rent by 1-2-1990. As already noticed, it was extended upto 9-3-1990. Even then the petitioners did not pay or deposit the rent. They have taken shelter under the plea that the Rent Controller's order has been stayed by the Appellate Court. It cannot be envisaged that the effect of the stay order granted by the Appellate Court is to stay the payments of the admitted rent as well. The stay of operation of the order of the Controller, on a reasonable construction, could only mean the stay of payment of rent at more than the admitted sum during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, the non-payment of arrears of rent within the time stipulated by the Rent Controller would per se attract sub-section (4). The petitioner-tenants have not shown any cause much less a sufficient cause giving valid reason for non-payment of the admitted rent as per the directions of the Controller. Added to this, there was continued failure on his part to deposit rent within the normal time when it became due. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that no time limit is prescribed anywhere in the Act or the Rules for the deposit of rents under sub-section (1) of Section 11. Therefore sub-section (1) of Sec.11 is satisfied if the rent is paid during the pendency of the proceedings or the appeal at any time. There is a fallacy in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. There is sufficient indicia in the provisions of the Act itself as to when the rent is to be paid by the tenant. Clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Sec.10 contemplates the rent being paid or tendered within 15 days after the expiry of the time fixed in the tenancy agreement or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last date of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. The prescribed time within the meaning of sub-section (2) can be taken as the time envisaged by clause (i) of Section 10(2). Of course it can also be taken as the time, if any, stipulated by the Rent Control authority. In the absence of specification of the time limit by the Rules framed under the Act, it cannot be posited that sub-section (2) of Section 11 gives a carte blanche to the tenant to pay the rent during the pendency of the proceedings at any time he pleases.