Madras High Court
M. Govindarajan vs R.S. Vaideeswaran on 30 August, 2001
Equivalent citations: (2001)3MLJ458
ORDER
1. These civil revision petitions are filed by the tenant as revision petitioner in both civil revision petitions against separate judgments and decrees dated 14.8.2000 and made in R.C.A.Nos. 1354 of 1996 and 1165 of 1996 on the file of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras confirming the separate orders and decretal orders dated 27.8.1996 and made in M.P.No. 303 of 1993 in R.C.O.P.No. 1413 of 1992 and R.C.O.RNo. 1413 of 1992 respectively on the file of the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras.
2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of these civil revision petitions are as follows: -The respondent herein, who is the petitioner, is the owner of the premises described in the Rent Control Original Petition and the revision petitioner in both civil revision petitions, herein after referred to as "the revision petitioner" is the tenant of the demised premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 300. The respondent herein filed a petition for eviction against the revision petitioner on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period from 1.1.1992 to 30.4.1992. The said petition was resisted by the revision petitioner on the ground that there is no arrears of rent and also on the ground that the revision petitioner had paid an advance of Rs. 5,000 and pagadi of Rs. 5,000 totalling to Rs. 10,000 at the time of entering into a tenancy agreement with the respondent herein. During the pendency of the said petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default, the respondent herein filed a petition under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, herein after referred to as "the Act", requesting for a direction to deposit the arrears of rent by the revision petitioner to defend the Rent Control Original Petition. The said petition was resisted by the revision petitioner on the ground that the revision petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards advance and Rs. 5,000 towards pagadi totalling to Rs. 10,000 and therefore, the above said amount has to be adjusted towards the rental arrears, if any and the revision petitioner cannot be prevented from defending the eviction proceeding.
3. The learned Rent Controller has found that the question of payment of advance of Rs. 5,000 and pagadi of Rs. 5,000 totalling to Rs. 10,000, which was denied by the respondent herein, has to be decided only at the time of enquiry in the Rent Control Original Petition and therefore, the revision petitioner herein is bound deposit arrears of rent before Court. Accordingly, the learned Rent Controller directed the revision petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent on or before 2.7.1993 by order dated 18.6.1993. Aggrieved at the said order of the learned Rent Controller, the tenant as appellant preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No. 612 of 1993 on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. Along with the said petition, admittedly, the revision petitioner has filed a petition for stay of operation of order of the learned Rent Controller. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, after considering the submission made by the revision petitioner as appellant has directed the revision petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent as ordered by the learned Rent Controller, but on or before 4.8.1993. Admittedly the revision petitioner complied with the said order by depositing the said amount on 26.7-1993 i.e., within the stipulated time. On merits, the appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller on 27.2.1996.
4. The learned Rent Controller after dismissal of the appeal in R.C.A.No. 612 of 1993 on 27.2.1996, has passed an order in M.P.No. 303 of 1993 in R.C.O.P.No. 1413 of 1992 to the effect that the order of the learned Rent Controller directing to deposit arrears of rent under Section 11(4) of the Act on or before 2.7.1993 has not been complied with and the appeal in R.C.A.No. 612 of 1993 has been dismissed on merits finally and that therefore, the revision petitioner should be stopped from contesting the matter further in the main Rent Control Original Petition. Accordingly, the petition in R.C.O.P.No. 1354 of 1996 on the file of the learned XV, Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras has been ordered directing the revision petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent herein.
5. Aggrieved at the order and decretal order dated 27.8.1996 and made in M.P.No. 303 of 1993 in R.C.O.P.No. 1413 of 1992 on the file of the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, the tenant as appellant preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No. 1354 of 1996 on the file of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. Likewise, aggrieved at the order and decretal order dated 27.8.1996 and made in R.C.O.P.No. l413 of 1992 on the file of the learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, the tenant as appellant preferred, an appeal in R.C.A.No. 1 165 of 1996 on the file of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. After considering the submissions made on both sides in the light of material evidence available on record, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority concurred with the findings and orders of the learned Rent Controller and dismissed both the appeals in R.C.A.Nos.1354 of 1996 and 1165 of 1996 on his-file on 14.8.2000. Aggrieved at the judgments and decrees dated 14.8.2000 and made in R.C.A.Nos. 1354 of 1996 and 1165 of 1996 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenant as revision petitioner in both civil revision petitions has come forward with these civil revision petitions.
6. Admittedly, the respondent herein is the owner of the demised premises and the revision petitioner is the tenant of the above said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 300. The eviction proceeding was initiated on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period from 1.10.1992 to 31.1.1993. The fact remains that a petition in M.P.No. 303 of 1993 in R.C.O.P. No. 1413 of 1992 was filed under Section 11(4) of the Act for direction to deposit the arrears of rent by the revision petitioner before Court and in default to stop further proceedings in the Rent Control Original Petition. It is also not in dispute that the revision petitioner was directed to deposit arrears of rent on or before 2.7.1993 by order dated 18.6.1993 in M.P.No. 303 of 1993 in R.C.O.P.No. 1413 of 1992 on the file of the learned Rent Controller. It is equally not in dispute that the revision petitioner has not complied with the above said direction, but preferred the appeal in R.C.A.No. 612 of 1993 on the file of the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras along with a petition for stay of the order of the learned Rent Controller. It is the admitted case of both sides that in the appeal filed on or before 2.7.1993 a conditional stay order was granted by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority with direction to deposit the arrears of rent as directed by the learned Rent Controller, but on or before 4.8.1993. Admittedly the arrears of rent as ordered by the learned Rent Controller was deposited on 26.7.1993 thereby complying with the direction of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority.
7. The only question that arises for consideration at this stage is whether the deposit of arrears of rent by the revision petitioner on or before 4.8.1993 as per the direction of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority will amount to extension of time for payment of arrears of rent which was directed to be deposited on or before 2.7.1993 by the learned Rent Controller. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner, though sought stay of the order of the learned Rent Controller passed in. M.P.No. 303 of 1993, was directed to deposit the said arrears of rent on or before 4.8.1993 in the petition filed by the revision petitioner for stay as a condition precedent and that will certainly amount to extending the time by the competent Court to deposit the arrears of rent which was found due by the learned Rent Controller from the revision petitioner. But on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein vehemently contends that there is no petition for extension of time either before the learned Rent Controller or before the Appellate Authority and therefore, the direction given by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority upto 4.8.1993 to deposit the arrears of rent found due by the learned Rent Controller will not amount to extension of time. In support of such contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision reported in Arputham v. Singaravelu Nadar and Sons rep. by Partners, 1988 (2) M.L.J. 261. In that case, the learned Rent Controller directed the tenant in a petition filed under Section 11(3) of the Act to deposit the arrears of rent on or before 31.5.1986 by order dated 16.4.1986. The tenant did not deposit the rent as ordered by Court and therefore, the learned Rent Controller stopped all further proceedings on 17.6.1986 and directed the tenant to handover possession of the premises in question in that case to the landlords on or before 31.7.1986. The order directing the tenant to handover possession to the landlords on or before 31.7.1986 was challenged before the Authorities concerned. The appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller. It is against this order, the tenant filed a civil revision petition before this Court. In the circumstances of the case, it was held by the learned single Judge of this Court that it is for the Rent Controller, after satisfying himself that there was arrears of rent from the tenant to the landlords, has to direct the tenant to deposit the rent under Section 11(3) of the Act, that if the said arrears of rent has not been deposited within the stipulated time, it is for the tenant to show sufficient cause for his default, that in the event of default, the Rent Controller has got every right to stop all further proceedings and to direct the tenant to put the landlords in possession of the building, that such order has to be passed in the main eviction petition and it has also been done by the Rent Controller correctly and therefore held that the revision petition is not maintainable. The facts and circumstances of the case cited above is entirely different to the facts and circumstances of this case and therefore, it will have no application to the case on hands.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent herein relied on the decision reported in S.K. Rajapandian v. A. Kesavan, 1991 (2) L.W. 453. in support of his case that the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in the appeals referred to above cannot be interfered with, in that case, the landlord filed a petition for eviction against the tenant on the ground of acts of waste and during the pendency of the said Rent Control Original Petition, a petition under Section 11 of the Act was filed for direction to the tenant to deposit arrears of rent to pursue his defence in the Rent Control Original Petition. The learned Rent Controller by order dated 31.3.1987 has held that the tenant was liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 300 per month and arrears of rent should be deposited on or before 6.4.1987. The tenant filed an appeal before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 23 of the Act and applied for stay of further proceedings of the order of the learned Rent Controller. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had granted stay of the order of the learned Rent Controller. But there is no direction for deposit of rent on or before any particular date. The tenant himself paid entire arrears of rent to the respondent through his counsel by means of a demand draft on 28.4.1987 which was long after 6.4.1987 when the arrears of rent has to be deposited as per the order of the learned Rent Controller. The main appeal was heard and the appeal was dismissed. The further proceedings was stopped under Section 11(4) of the Act. by the learned Rent Controller and ultimately directed the tenant to deliver possession of the premises in question to the landlord on the basis that he has not complied with the direction of the Rent Controller in the petition referred to above on or before 6.4.1987. The appeal and the civil revision petition filed by the tenant were also dismissed. The special leave petition filed against the order in civil revision petition was also dismissed.
9. It is relevant to point out that the Appellate Authority in the appeal filed against the order of the learned Rent Controller under Section 11(4) of the Act had only stayed the order of the learned Rent Controller, but time was not given by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority to the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent found by the learned Rent Controller on or before a particular date. The tenant on his own accord deposited all the arrears of rent on 28.4.1987 inspite of the order of stay, but long after 6.4.1987 on or before which date the arrears of rent have to be deposited. In this case, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had granted stay, in the stay petition filed before 2.7.1993 but on condition of depositing the arrears of rent found as due by the learned Rent Controller on or before 4.8.1993. The said order has also been complied with on 26.7.1993 and the same is well within time. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority ought to have taken not of the date fixed by the learned Rent Controller, viz., 2.7.1993 before ordering the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent on or before 4.8.1993. It will certainly mean that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority thought it fit to extend the time for payment of arrears of rent which has to be deposited on or before 2.7.1993 as per the order of the learned Rent Controller. This Court is of opinion that, the Appellate Authority should have extended time till 4.8.1993 in a petition filed for stay of the order, only after taking note of the deadline fixed deposit the arrears of rent on or before 2.7.1993. If the above said circumstances are taken into consideration, this Court is of clear view that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority had extended time for deposit of arrears of rent from 2.7.1993 to 4.8.1993 pending disposal of the appeal in R.C.A.No. 612 of 1993. In the decision referred to above the learned single Judge of this Court has held as follows: -
"If the petitioner wanted to comply with the order of the Rent Controller, then he should have applied for extension of time either before the Rent Controller or the petitioner ought lo have filed an application before the appellate authority for extension of time for making the deposit as directed by the Rent Controller. He did not do so. On the other hand, he made the payment on 28.4.1987 without prejudice to his right in the proceedings. Similarly the landlord accepted the payment without prejudice. It is not open to the petitioner to contend now that such payment would mean in law due compliance with the order of the Rent Controller. The grant of stay by the appellate authority in an official would not tantamount to extension of time fixed by the Rent Controller for deposit of arrears of rent."
Therefore, it is evident from the decision referred to above that extension can be granted by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority for deposit of arrears of rent found as due by the learned Rent Controller despite the fact that the Rent Controller had fixed a particular time for deposit of such arrears of rent. In this case, the conditional order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on 30.6.1993 to deposit the arrears of rent found as due by the learned Rent Controller on or before 4.8.1993 by the tenant will certainly amount to extension of time to deposit the arrears of rent from the time before which the arrears of rent has to be deposited as per the order of the learned Rent Controller. If that view is taken this Court is of opinion that the revision petitioner has complied with the order of the learned Rent Controller by depositing the arrears of rent on 26.7.1993 by getting extension of time for such deposit up to 4.8.1993 before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority.
10. In view of the compliance of the order of the learned Rent Controller by getting extension before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority by the revision petitioner, the Courts below have committed an error in holding that the order of the learned Rent Controller was not complied with and therefore, the petition in M.P.No. 303 of 1993 in R.C.O.P.No. l413 of 1992 has to be allowed. By allowing the above said petition, the Courts below ought not to have passed an order directing the revision petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent herein. In view of the said position, the concurrent finding given by the Courts below cannot be sustained.
11. This Court, of course, sitting in supervisory jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act, can interfere with the concurrent findings of Courts below, provided there is illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order passed by the Courts below. The facts narrated supra would disclose that the Courts below have committed illegality in construing the time granted by the Appellate Court upto 4.8.1993 for deposit of arrears of rent by the revision petitioner was not extension of time for deposit of arrears of rent as ordered by the learned Rent Controller. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court is bound to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below to set right the injustice done to the revision petitioner in these matters. Accordingly, the concurrent finding of Courts below in both matters have to be set aside and accordingly set aside.
12. In fine, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in both appeals referred to above are set aside and the civil revision petitions are allowed. The learned Rent Controller is hereby directed to restore the Rent Control Original Petition on file and to dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and records. In the circumstances, both parties are directed to bear their own costs. In view of the disposal of the main civil revision petitions, the petitions in C.M.P.Nos.5949 and 5950 of 2001 are closed as unnecessary.