Telangana High Court
M/S. Sri Srinivasa Electronics vs Dr. Surender Kumar Grover on 12 September, 2022
Author: M.Laxman
Bench: M.Laxman
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5667 OF 2011
% 12--09--2022
# M/s.Sri Srinivasa Electronics,
Rep. by its Managing Partner
...Petitioner
vs.
$ Dr.Surender Kumar Grover
... Respondent
!Counsel for the Appellant: Sri R.A.Achuthanand
^Counsel for Respondent: Sri Venkatesh Deshpande
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
1. Civil Appeal No.710 of 2010, dated 30.01.2020
2. (1987) 1 SCC 712
2
ML,J
Crp_5667_2011
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5667 OF 2011
Between:
M/s.Sri Srinivasa Electronics,
Rep. by its Managing Partner
...Petitioner
And
Dr.Surender Kumar Grover
... Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 12.09.2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? :
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? :
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? :
_______________
M.LAXMAN, J
3
ML,J
Crp_5667_2011
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5667 OF 2011
ORDER:
1. This revision has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2011 in R.A.No.358 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad (lower appellate Court), wherein and whereby the order dated 31.08.2010 in R.C.No.194 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad (Rent Controller), was confirmed. R.C.No.194 of 2006, filed by the respondent herein for eviction of the petitioner herein from the property in question, was allowed.
2. The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondent herein is the landlord. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the tenant and the landlord, respectively.
3. The pleadings of the landlord show that he is the owner of premises bearing No.5-4-423/8/A, Ground floor of Hotel Shanti Nivas Building, Nampally Cross Roads, Hyderabad, (hereinafter, it is referred to as 'scheduled premises'). He let out the scheduled premises to the tenant @ Rs.900/- per month. The landlord sought eviction on two 4 ML,J Crp_5667_2011 grounds, one is willful default in payment of rent and the other is subletting the scheduled premises by the tenant to third party without any right. The original tenancy was entered on 15.10.1982 and the rent payable was 10th of every next succeeding month. Default was pleaded from October, 1999 to March, 2006, total arrears of rent comes to Rs.70,200/-. It was also pleaded that the tenant filed R.C.No.217 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, against the landlord for permission to deposit the rents and the same was allowed by order dated 15.02.2002. Challenging the same, the landlord filed R.A.No.157 of 2002 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the same was also allowed by order dated 05.09.2005, setting aside the order dated 15.02.2002 on the ground that the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad had no jurisdiction since the rent exceeds the statutory limit prescribed under the Telangana State Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, the Act). Challenging the said order, the tenant preferred a civil revision petition and he withdrew the same subsequently. Thereafter, the landlord filed the present R.C. 5 ML,J Crp_5667_2011
4. The case of the tenant is that he admits the original tenancy, initial rent and the existing rent. He also pleaded that he deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- with the landlord towards refundable deposit. He also pleaded that the property tax was excluded from the rent. The rent from July, 1999 to December, 1999 was paid to the hotel representative of the landlord by way of cheques, but the cheques were not encahsed. Therefore, the tenant sent the rent amount for the months from January, 2000 to July, 2000 through postal orders. For the months of August and September of 2000 the rent was paid to the hotel representative of the landlord through cheques. The tenant sent the money orders for the months from October, 2000 to February, 2001. Subsequently, the tenant filed R.C.No.217 of 2001 for permission to deposit the rent, and upon permission, he deposited the rent before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for the period from October, 2000 to May, 2001. He also deposited the rents upto August, 2005 i.e., till R.A.No.157 of 2002 was allowed observing that I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad had no jurisdiction to entertain R.C.No.217 of 2001. Subsequently, the tenant preferred the revision, but the same was withdrawn. After service of summons in the 6 ML,J Crp_5667_2011 present rent control case i.e., R.C.No.194 of 2006, the tenant paid rent through pay orders of Rs.7,800/- covering the period from September, 2005 to April, 2006 and Rs.10,800/- covering the period from October, 1999 to September, 2000. According to the tenant, there was no default in payment of rent. He also pleaded that there was no subletting of the scheduled premises. On the above grounds, the tenant sought to dismiss the case.
5. The Rent Controller, on the basis of the above pleadings, has framed the following issues:
"1. Whether the respondent has committed willful default in payment of rents from October, 1999 onwards?
2. Whether the respondent has sublet the premises to third parties?
3. To what relief the petitioner is entitled for?"
6. The landlord, to support his case, examined P.W.1 and relied upon Exs.P-1 to P-4. The tenant, to support its case, examined R.W.1 and relied upon Exs.R-1 to R-81.
7. The Rent Controller, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that there was willful default in payment of rent for the period from October, 1999 to September, 2000 and also found that after the appeal i.e., R.A.No.157 of 2002 was allowed holding that the I Additional Rent Controller, 7 ML,J Crp_5667_2011 Hyderabad had no jurisdiction, the tenant had not withdrawn the rent amounts deposited with the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad and not paid the same to the landlord. This conduct of the tenant is treated as willful default by the Rent Controller. However, the Rent Controller did not agree that the tenant had sublet the premises. On the above findings, the Rent Controller allowed the case.
8. Challenging the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant preferred R.A.No.358 of 2010 and the lower appellate Court held that there was willful default of rents for the period considered by the Rent Controller and also held that there was also non-compliance of Rules 5 and 16 of the Telangana State Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 (for short, the Rules) while depositing the rent which also amounts to willful default. While holding so, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal at the instance of the tenant.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant has contended that both the Courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record, particularly the default period, and failed to consider that even if there was willful default, since the landlord was having the advance amount 8 ML,J Crp_5667_2011 of Rs.25,000/- with him, he should have adjusted that amount for the default period. If such adjustment is done, automatically there is no default for the period covering from October, 1999 to September, 2000. It is also his contention that the amounts deposited before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad during the pendency of R.C.No.217 of 2001 and R.A.No.157 of 2002 could have been withdrawn by the landlord after dismissal of R.A.No.157 of 2002, but he did not do so. Thus, the question of willful default does not arise.
10. It is also contended that when there was a finding that the Act is not applicable, the lower appellate Court erred in holding that the tenant has not complied Rules 5 and 16 of the Rules. Hence, such finding amounts to giving a contradictory finding. It is his last contention that in view of the findings in the previous proceedings holding that the tenancy is not covered under the statutory tenancy, the defaults if any committed anterior to the date of amendment Act which came into force on 28.05.2005, whereby contractual tenancy becoming a statutory tenancy cannot be a ground to evict the tenant from the scheduled premises. 9
ML,J Crp_5667_2011
11. On the contrary, learned counsel for the landlord has contended that both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record in holding that there was willful default in payment of rents covering the period from October, 1999 to September, 2000 and also for non-payment of rent which was deposited in the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. When R.A.No.157 of 2002 was allowed holding that the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad had no jurisdiction, the tenant either ought to have withdrawn the rents and paid to the landlord or ought to have paid his own money and withdraw such amount. Non-payment of rent for such period would amount to willful default which was rightly considered by the both the Courts below and hence, such finding requires no interference.
12. It is also his submission that in addition to the above concurrent findings of both the Courts below, the appellate Court found that when the tenant had been depositing the rent before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad on the assumption that the relation between the tenant and the landlord is covered by the Act, he has not complied the statutory requirement of Rules 15 and 16 of the Rules, as per which the tenant is required to intimate the depositing of 10 ML,J Crp_5667_2011 rent to the landlord through a specific notice. Non- compliance of the same also amounts to willful default. This was also taken as an additional ground by the lower appellate Court to dismiss the appeal, which cannot be found fault with by this Court.
13. It is his last submission that the contractual terms existing between the landlord and the tenant prior to the relationship covers under the Amendment Act No.17 of 2005 would not automatically wiped out in entirety but the terms which are only repugnant to the provisions of the Act would only unenforceable and rest of the terms are binding on the landlord and tenant under the Act. According to him, the contention of the learned counsel for the tenant that the grounds available for the landlord prior to the relationship covered under the Act are not available is unmerited.
14. The evidence on record shows that the tenant disputed non-payment of rent for the period covering October, 1999 to September, 2000. The evidence on record also shows that D.W.1 admitted that there was no proof to show that the rent was paid to the landlord for the period covering October, 1999 to September, 2000. As per the pleadings of the tenant, the rent was paid for the said period through six 11 ML,J Crp_5667_2011 cheques and subsequently, he sent postal orders. However, in the evidence produced under Exs.R-79 to 81, the Courts below found that the pay orders have been produced from the bank. The Rent Controller noticing the anomaly in the pleadings and the admissions by the witness in the chief examination, vis-à-vis documents produced, found that the bank pay orders claimed to have been sent to the landlord were wholly unreliable. Consequently, he found that there was willful default for the said period. This was also taken note by the lower appellate Court. I found that the said finding, which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court, is based on the evidence, and hence, such finding cannot be disturbed in the present revision.
15. Coming to the next default taken by the Rent Controller, admittedly the tenant had deposited the rents before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad for the period from October, 2000 to August, 2005. The said rent was deposited during the pendency of R.C.No.217 of 2001 and R.A.No.157 of 2002. Ultimately, in R.A.No.157 of 2002, the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad found that I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad had no jurisdiction. This finding was assailed by the tenant in the 12 ML,J Crp_5667_2011 form of revision, but he withdrew the same. That means, the finding in R.A.No.157 of 2002 holding that the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad had no jurisdiction has become final.
16. Admittedly, rental arrears for the period of pendency of R.C.No.217 of 2001 and R.A.No.157 of 2002, the tenant did not make any attempt to pay such arrears to the landlord either by way of withdrawal of amount which he has deposited before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad or by way of separate payment for the period covering the said proceedings.
17. In this regard, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the tenant that it was always open for the landlord to withdraw such amount. It is also his contention that there was no order in R.A.No.157 of 2002 clarifying who i.e., either the landlord or the tenant, can withdraw the amount deposited before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. This contention is not merited for the reason that once the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad held that the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad has no jurisdiction, the landlord cannot lay any claim over the amount deposited before the I Additional Rent 13 ML,J Crp_5667_2011 Controller, Hyderabad. It is for the tenant to withdraw such amount and pay the same to the landlord. Admittedly, till date, such amount is lying with the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. Therefore, this conduct of the tenant, after disposal of R.A.No.157 of 2002 and withdrawal of revision in not paying the rent, tantamount to willful default for the period covered under the said proceedings. This evidence was rightly appreciated by the Rent Controller and the lower appellate Court. Such findings do not suffer from any irregularity.
18. In R.A.No.157 of 2002, the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad found that the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad had no jurisdiction and also taken note of non-compliance of Rules 5 and 16 of the Rules by the tenant during the period of deposit of rent. In this regard, the contention of the learned counsel for the tenant is that when the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad held that I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad had no jurisdiction, the lower appellate Court ought not to have gone into the issue of non-compliance of Rules 5 and 16 of the Rules. This argument is also unmerited for the reason that the tenant, while depositing the rents on the 14 ML,J Crp_5667_2011 assumption that the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad was having jurisdiction, had not complied with the statutory requirement of issuance of notice to the landlord about the deposit of the amount.
19. The learned counsel for the tenant has submitted that the landlord in his cross-examination admitted that the tenant deposited the amount before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, and if such admission is taken into consideration, non-compliance of Rules 5 and 16 of the Rules by the tenant has no significance. This contention is also devoid of merits for the reason that what is admitted is actual position after verification. When the statute prescribes a procedure to be adopted, the tenant is required to adopt the same and it is, in fact, mandatory. Hence, non-compliance of such procedure amounts to willful default even though deposit was made before the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. This was the law laid down by the Apex Court. Reference to Rules 5 and 16 of the Rules was in the context of assessing the conduct of the tenant but not otherwise. Therefore, the findings of the lower appellate Court on this aspect also do not suffer from any irregularity.
15
ML,J Crp_5667_2011
20. The contention of the tenant regarding the adjustment of the rent amounts with the advance amount available with the landlord is concerned, admittedly Rs.25,000/- was available with the landlord. The amount for the willful default period from October, 1999 to September, 2000 comes to Rs.10,800/-. The amount for the other defaulted period from October, 2000 to August, 2005 comes to Rs.51,300/-. Assuming that such advance amount adjustable towards arrears, even after such adjustment, still there is default of nearly Rs.35,000/- which was not paid till date to the landlord. Both the Courts below found that if the adjustment is made, still the balance amount is falling short and hence, the second default is also committed by the tenant. Therefore, this contention has become insignificant.
21. The next submission of the learned counsel for the tenant is that the landlord cannot initiate the eviction proceedings on the ground of default of payment of rent anterior to coming into force of amendment Act which came in the year 2005. By the Amendment Act No.17 of 2005, Section 32 of the Act was amended and the amended section is as follows:
"32. Act not apply to certain buildings:- The provisions of this Act shall not apply,-16
ML,J Crp_5667_2011
(a) to any building belonging to the State Government or the Central Government, or Cantonment Board or any local authority;
(b) to any building constructed or substantially renovated, either before or after the commencement of this Act for a period of fifteen years from the date of completion of such construction or substantial renovation.
Explanation-I:- A building may be said to be substantially renovated if not less than seventy five per cent of the premises is built new in accordance with the criteria prescribed for determining the extent of renovation. Explanation-II:- Date of completion of construction shall be the date of completion as intimated to the concerned authority or of assessment of property tax, whichever is earlier, and where the premises have been constructed in stages the date on which the initial building was completed and an intimation thereof was sent to the concerned authority or was assessed to property tax, whichever is earlier.
(c) to any building the rent of which as on the date of commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control (Amendment) Act, 2005, exceeds rupees three thousand and five hundred per month in the areas covered by the Municipal Corporations in the State and rupees two thousand per month in other areas."
22. By virtue of the amendment, the building constructed or substantially renovated are exempted from the purview of the Act, if it is below 15 years old from the date of completion of construction or renovation. As per the amendment Act, the buildings above 15 years with rent below Rs.3,500/- in the areas covered by the Municipal Corporations are brought under the purview of the Act and 17 ML,J Crp_5667_2011 rest of the buildings are excluded from the purview of the Act.
23. In the present case, by virtue of the findings in the previous rent control proceedings, the landlord and the tenant relationship was not governed under the Act prior to the amended Act and such relation was governed under the Transfer of Property Act. By virtue of the said amendment, the contractual relationship between the parties was brought under the purview of the Act, as the ceiling of monthly rent is enhanced to Rs.3,500/-.
24. In the present case, the monthly rent of the scheduled premises was taken as Rs.900/-, and on the said claim, the proceedings for eviction were initiated for the willful defaulted period prior to the amended Act. The facts on hand disclose that the default period was also covered even after coming into force the amended Act of 2005 i.e., for the months from June to August, 2005 apart from the default period covering from October, 1999 to September, 2000 and October, 2000 to August, 2005.
25. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to Section 10(2) of the Act and it reads as under:
18
ML,J Crp_5667_2011 "10. Eviction of tenants:-
(1) ...
(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied:-
(i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable; or
(ii) to (vi) ...
26. A reading of the above provision would make it clear that if the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due in respect of the building within 15 days after expiry of time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with the landlord or in the absence of such agreement, by the last day of the month next following, it is treated as willful default.
27. In the present case, admittedly the rent was payable by 10th of next succeeding month. There was a written registered lease deed, whereunder the conditions of tenancy were stipulated, and such lease deed was entered prior to the Amendment Act No.17 of 2005 came into force. Now the question is whether the grounds which are available to the 19 ML,J Crp_5667_2011 landlord or the tenant under the contractual tenancy cease to operate by virtue of the relationship falling under the Act?
28. In this regard, it is apt to refer to Section 10(3)(d) of the Act and it reads as under:
"10. Eviction of tenants:-
(1) and (2) ...
(3) (a) to (c) ...
(d) Where the tenancy is for a specified period agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant, the landlord shall not be entitled to apply under this sub-section before the expiry of such period."
29. A combined reading of Sections 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (d) of the Act, it is clear that the Act is not completely encroached upon the contractual relationship between the landlord and the tenant, but such relationship is restricted and held to be invalid, if they are contrary to the statutory provisions of the Act.
30. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in N.Motilal v. Faisal Bin Ali1, wherein it has been held as under:
"10. The Constitution Bench of this Court in M/s. Raval & Co. had occasion to consider Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960. Section 4 of the said Act provides for application for fixation of the fair rent for the tenant as well as the landlord. In the majority judgment speaking through Alagiriswami, J. in paragraphs 18 and 19 following has been laid down:1
Civil Appeal No.710 of 2010, dated 30.01.2020 20 ML,J Crp_5667_2011
18. The provisions of the Act under consideration show that they are to take effect notwithstanding any contract even during the Subsistence of the contract. We have already referred to the definition of the terms 'landlord' and 'tenant' which applies both to subsisting tenancies as well as tenancies which might have come to an end.
We may also refer to the provision in Section 7(2) which lays down that where the fair rent of a building has not been fixed the landlord shall not claim anything in addition to the agreed rent, thus showing that the fair rent can be fixed even where there is an agreed rent. That is why we have earlier pointed out that the various English decisions which provide for fixation of rent only where the contractual tenancy has come to an end do not apply here. We may also refer to Sub-section (3) of Section 10 which deals with cases where a landlord requires a residential or nonresidential building for his own use. Clause (d) of that sub-section provides that where the tenancy is for a term the landlord cannot get possession before the expiry of the term, thus showing that in other cases of eviction covered by Section 10 eviction is permissible even during the continuance of the contractual tenancy if the conditions laid down in Section 10 are satisfied.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the minority judgment delivered by Bhagwati, J. for himself and K.K. Mathew, J. although the minority judgment has held that landlord can make an application for determination of fair rent only after the determination of tenancy and during subsistence of contractual rent no application for fair rent can be given. We are bound by the majority opinion of the Constitution Bench in M/s. Raval & Co. We further notice that both the learned counsel have referred to seven-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in V. Dhanapal Chettiar vs. Yesodal Ammal (supra). Seven-Judge Bench had occasion to refer to the Constitution Bench judgment in M/s. Raval & Co. (supra) which was quoted with approval. Referring to majority judgment in M/s. Raval & Co.'s case seven- Judge Bench made following observation:
15. Alagiriswami J. at page 635 after having made that observation with reference to Bhaiya Panjalat's case has said-"Be that as it may, we are now concerned with the question of fixation of a fair rent." In our opinion the majority decision with regard to Section 4 was undoubtedly correct and the minority stretched the law, if we may say so with respect, too far to hold that Section 4 was not available to the landlord. It should be remembered, as we have said above, that the field of freedom of contract was encroached upon to a very large 21 ML,J Crp_5667_2011 extent by the State Rent Acts. The encroachment was not entirely and wholly one sided. Same encroachment was envisaged in the interest of the landlord also and equity and justice demanded a fair play on the part of the legislature not to completely ignore the helpless situation of many landlords who are also compared to some big tenants sometimes weaker Section of the society. As for example a widow or a minor lets out a family house in a helpless situation to tide over the financial difficulty and later wants a fair rent to be determined. Again suppose for instance in a city there is an apprehension of external aggression, severe internal disturbances or spread of epidemics, A man in possession of his house may go to another town letting out his premises to a tenant financially b and of b, nerves at a rate comparatively much lower than the prevailing market rates. Later on, on the normalization of the situation as against the agreed rate of rent be approaches the Building Controller for fixing a fair rent in accordance with a particular State Rent Act. Why should she or he be debarred from doing so. The statute gives him the protection and enables the Controller to intervene to fix a fair rent as against the term of contract between the parties. In a large number of cases it is the tenant who gets this protection. But in some as in the case of Raval the landlord needs and gets the protection. But this is not a direct authority on the point of notice."
31. A reading of the above judgment would show that the Act was enacted for the benefit of both the landlord and the tenant. The contractual relationship has been restricted and substantially encroached by the statutory encroachment. However, it was not complete and still the contractual relationship governs the parties which are not repugnant to the provisions of the Act.
32. The learned counsel for the tenant has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Tirath Ram Gupta v.22
ML,J Crp_5667_2011 Gurubachan Singh2 to contend that the grounds which are available to the landlord for eviction prior to the applicability of the Act cannot be the ground for eviction.
33. A close reading of the facts of the said case shows that the landlord filed eviction petition prior to the said amendment Act came into force on the ground that the tenant has sublet the premises, which was prohibited under the Act. However, the landlord failed to produce the record to show that sublet was prohibited under the lease deed. Under Section 108(f) of the Transfer of Prohibition Act, there is no prohibition of subletting. In the absence of contractual terms prohibiting the subletting, the tenant under the Transfer of Property Act is entitled to sublet the property. This means, the tenant failed to establish that the ground for eviction prior to the applicability of the Act was existing to him. In the absence of such ground, the tenant cannot avail the benefit of the Act, whereunder the sublet was prohibited for the acts of the tenant subletting the premises prior to the amendment Act came into force. Therefore, the said judgment cannot help the petitioner herein. 2 (1987) 1 SCC 712 23 ML,J Crp_5667_2011
34. From the above legal position, it can be safely held that the grounds which are available either the landlord or the tenant under the contractual terms which are not repugnant to the Act are still available to either of them to invoke the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller under the Act. Thus, I find no merits in the present revision petition and it is devoid of merits.
35. At this stage, the learned counsel for the tenant sought six months time to vacate the scheduled premises and the learned counsel for the respondent opposed the same stating that six months time is a long period. Considering the monthly tenancy and the nature of business carried out by the petitioner, this Court feels that three months time is sufficient for vacating the scheduled premises.
36. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is granted three months time, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to vacate the scheduled premises, subject to filing of an undertaking by him before the Rent Controller, within 15 days from today, to the effect that he will vacate the scheduled premises on the expiry of three months time. 24
ML,J Crp_5667_2011 If the undertaking is not filed within the stipulated time, the landlord is given liberty to execute the decree forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
________________ M.LAXMAN, J Date: 12.09.2022 Note: L.R. Copy to be marked.
B/o. TJMR