Madras High Court
P.K. Periyasamy Nadar And Sons And 4 Ors. vs S. Sakthivel on 14 June, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997(2)CTC241
Author: M. Karpagavinayagam
Bench: M. Karpagavinayagam
ORDER M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. The petitioners filed R.C.O.P.No. 13 of 1995, on the file of Rent Controller, Virudhunagar, against the respondent herein for eviction on the ground of wilful default. Pending the said petition, petitioners also filed an application in I.A.No.35 of 1995, Under section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for deposit of arrears of rent.
2. On 1.3.1996, after finishing enquiry, the Rent Controller, after considering the legal and genuine claim of the petitioners, allowed the petitions and ordered eviction.
3. The respondent herein, challenging the above order filed two appeals in R.C.A.Nos. 9 of 1996 against the order on the application Under Section 11(4) of the said Act, and another appeal in R.C.A.No. 10 of 1996, against the order passed in the main O.P. When these two appeals came before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, on 23.4.1996, the Rent Control Appellate Authority in .A.No. 194 of 1996, granted interim stay, despite the pendency of the caveats petition. However, on 21.6.1996, the caveator filed the counter for vacating the interim stay, stating that the appeal could not be entertained, unless the entire arrears is paid.
4. Arguments of both sides heard on 5.7.1996. On 19.7.1996, the Rent Control appellate authority stayed the order passed by the lower Court, on the condition, that the tenant, the respondent herein, should pay Rs.300 per month from 1.3.1987, till the said date, contrary to the findings given by the Rent Controller, that rent would be Rs.500 per month, to be payable from 1.3.1987. Being aggrieved over this order, the petitioners had filed this revision before this Court.
5. This revision has to be allowed on a short point. This court, on earlier occasions decided on the very same question, that appeal cannot be maintained, unless the entire arrears of rent is deposited, as required Under section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, in the case of Pichai Chetty and five Ors. v. M.K. Muthukrishnan, 1991 (2) L.W. 614 and in Ravichandran v. N. Sulaiman, .
6. According to Section 11(1) of the Act, "no tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord Under Section 10 shall be entitled to contest the application before the controller under that section, or to prefer any appeal Under Section 23 against any order made by the Controller on the application, unless he has paid or pays to the landlord, or deposits with the controller or the Appellate Authority as the case may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of the building put the date of payment of deposit, and continues to pay or to deposit any 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."
7. Therefore, it is quite evident that the deposit of entire arrears of rent is a condition precedent, for filing an appeal against the order of eviction. This section enables the tenant to discharge the burden of arrears of rent, as well as the payment of future rent, and at the same time, secures the same to the landlord, so that the landlord is not put to the necessity of taking steps for the recovery of the same during the pendency of the proceedings. Therefore, as laid down, by the above quoted decisions, without paying or depositing the entire arrears of rent, as ordered by the Rent Controller Under Section 11(4) of the Act, the appeal cannot be entertained.
8. During the pendency of the civil revision petition before this Court, memo of calculation has been filed by both parties, showing that only a portion of the arrears of rent has been deposited. As discussed above, unless the entire arrears of rental amount, payable from 1.3.1987 upto date at Rs. 500 per month, as ordered by the Rent Controller is paid to the landlord or deposited in court, the appeal could not be entertained.
9. The impugned order, in view of the above reasoning's, is set aside. The Court below is directed not to entertain the appeal, till the entire arrears of rent as stated above, upto date is paid to the landlord. The matter is remanded back for fresh disposal in accordance with law, taking into consideration of the principal laid down in the above refereed decisions.
10. With these observations, the revision is allowed. Consequently, no further order is necessary in the C.M.P.