Madras High Court
Bahadurmul Sowcar vs $1.M.R.Lakshmanan on 14 June, 2006
Author: S.Rajeswaran
Bench: S.Rajeswaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 14/06/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN
C.R.P.(NPD) No.2313 of 2005
and C.R.P.(NPD) 2314 and 2315 of 2005
1.Bahadurmul Sowcar
2.Subramani
.. Petitioners in C.R.P.
NPD No.2313/05
Bahadurmul Sowcar
Rep.by his Power of Attorney
Agent Subramanian
.. Petitioner in C.R.P
NPD Nos.2314 & 2315/05
-Vs-
$1.M.R.Lakshmanan
2.M.R.Narayanan
3.M.R.Muthiah
4.M.R.Sevugan Chetti
5.M.R.Avichi
6.P.L.Chidambaram
7.P.L.Sathappan
8.P.L.Muthiah .. Respondents in C.R.P.
NPD Nos.2313 &2314/05.
Muthiah .. Respondent in C.R.P.
NPD No.2315/05.
Revision Petitions filed against the judgment dated 29.8.2005, in
R.C.A.Nos.2,3 of 2003 & 7/1997, on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge,
Tiruvannamalai (Appellate Authority) confirming the order dated 25.2 .2003,
25.2.2003 and 24.10.1997 in H.R.C.O.P.Nos.16/1998, 9/2000 and RCOP No.3/1997
respectively, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai
(Rent Controller).
!For Petitioners : Mr.A.Venkatesan
^For Respondents : Mr.T.V.Ramanujam,
Senior Counsel, for
Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari.
:COMMON ORDER
I. C.R.P.NPD No.2313/2005:
The unsuccessful tenant before both the authorities below is the first revision petitioner. H.R.C.O.P.No.16/1998 was filed by the respondents herein under Sec.10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on the grounds of subletting and wilful default against the revision petitioners for an order of eviction of the revision petitioner from the property bearing Door No.1, Asaliamman Koil Street, Tiruvannamalai Town. The respondents have stated in the eviction petition that the premises in question was occupied by the 1st revision petitioner 3 5 years ago on an yearly rent of Rs.750/-. The petition premises was originally belonged to one Murugappa Chettiar and Palaniyappa Chettiar. The said Murugappa Chettiar died in the year 1992 and Palaniappa Chettiar died in 1975. The respondents 1 to 5 herein are the sons of Murugappa Chettiar and respondents 6 to 8 are the sons of Palaniappa Chettiar. Thus all the 8 persons joined together and filed the eviction petition. It is the case of the landlords that the first revision petitioner/tenant did not pay the rent from the year 1992 onwards and he has been squatting on the property without paying any rent for the past 5 years. In anticipation of filing eviction petition, the 1st revision petitioner suddenly sent a notice on14.7.1995 along with a Demand Draft for Rs.2250/-. In that notice dated 14.7.1995, the tenant has stated that he has already filed a petition in H.R.C.O.P. No.2/1988 before the Rent Controller through his power of attorney to deposit the rent into court and the same was allowed. The tenant has also informed about the filing of H.R.C.O.P.No.14/1990 and the said H.R.C.O.P.No.14/1990 was dismissed on 29.6.1993 for not taking steps to bring the Legal Representatives of Murugappa Chettiar. The tenant has further informed in the notice dated 14.7.95 that he deposited the rent into court till 1992. As he could not find out the Legal Representatives of Murugappa Chettiar in spite of his best efforts, he could not pay the same from September 1992 to till date.
According to the tenant, he came to know about the 3rd respondent herein only now through his lawyer and therefore he sent the notice dated 14.7.95 enclosing a demand draft for Rs.2,250/- being the rent for the period from September 1992 to August 1995. To this notice dated 14.7.95, the 3rd respondent herein sent a reply on 14.12.1995 stating that having kept quiet for the past 5 years without sending the rent, the tenant could not come forward to pay the rent and returned the demand draft sent by the tenant. Subsequently, the tenant/first petitioner herein sent a sum of Rs.750/- along with the notice dated 9.7.1996 and it was again returned by the landlords in their notice dated 23.9.96. The respondents herein further alleged in the RCOP that the 1st petitioner sublet the property to the 2nd petitioner and hence the Revision Petitioners are liable to be evicted on the ground of wilful default and subletting.
2. The 1st petitioner herein filed a counter in HRCOP No.16/1998 and resisted the eviction proceedings. In his counter, the tenant stated that even though he came to know about the death of Murugappa Chettiar in the year 1993, only in 1995 he could obtain the particulars of Legal Representatives of Murugappa Chettiar and immediately he sent a notice dated 14.7.95 enclosing a demand draft for Rs.2,250/- being the rent for the period from September 1992 to August1995. Even when Murugappa Chettiar was alive, he filed HRCOP Nos.2/1988 and 14/1990 and has been depositing the rent into court. When Murugappa Chettiar died, as he could not know the particulars of Legal Representatives of Murugappa Chettiar, he could not take steps in HRCOP No.14/1990 which was dismissed on 29.8.1993. The moment he came to know about the 3rd respondent herein, he immediately sent the arrears of Rs.2,250/- by demand draft along with notice dated 14.7.95. Even for the period September 1995 to August 1996 he sent a demand draft on 9.7.96 but it was returned without any justifiable reasons. Therefore he sent the amounts by Money Order on 22.11.96 and that was also refused. Therefore he filed HRCOP No,.3/1996 for depositing the rent from September 1992 to August 1996 but the same was dismissed against which an appeal in RCA No.7/1997 was filed and pending. Therefore, according to the tenant, he has not committed any default at all. Even assuming that he has committed default, it is not wilful default.
3. The Rent Controller by order dated 25.2.2003 ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default, after holding that subletting was not proved. The appeal was filed in RCA No.2/2003 was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 29.8.2005. Challenging the same, this revision petition was filed by the tenant.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. I have also perused the documents filed in support of their submissions.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that both the authorities below have not rendered a proper finding on the basis of the evidence let in by the parties. He further submitted that the tenant could not continue to deposit the rent in HRCOP No.2/198 8 as the Power of Attorney who filed the petition on behalf of the tenant passed away. Similarly, the tenant could not deposit the rent in HRCOP No.14/1990, as the same was dismissed for not taking steps to bring the legal heirs of deceased Murugappa Chettiar, despite his best efforts to trace them. As soon as the tenants came to know about one of the legal heirs, he immediately sent a Demand Draft for Rs.2,250/- and another Demand Draft for Rs.750/-, both of them were returned. Even the two Money Orders sent by the tenants were also returned and immediately he filed a petition in HRCOP No.3/1996 for depositing the rent from 9/1992 to 8/1996. In such circumstances, if the totality of the situation is taken into consideration, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the tenant is not said to have committed wilful default.
6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments:-
(1) AIR 1985 S.C. 582 (S.Sundaram v. V.R.Pattabhiraman); (2)1998(I) CTC 531 (Purandara Vittal v. Radha Bai); (3) 1999(III) CTC 512 ( Subbiah, S.M. v.
S.Nandappan); (4) 2002-2-L.W. 559 (Loganathan, S. v. V. S.Rangasamy); (5) 2003-4-L.W.671 (P.M.Punnoose v. K.M.Munneruddin and others) and 6) 2004-3-L.W. 487 (V.Subramanian v. J.Venkatraman & another).
7. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that both the authorities below have elaborately considered the evidence let in and on the basis of the evidence, have rendered a finding that the tenant has committed wilful default which cannot be interfered with by this court under Sec.25 of the Act in the absence of any illegality or perversity.
8. He relied on the judgment of this court reported in 2000-2-L.W. 7 08 (Vasuvaithiar,P. v. R.M.Rangoo Chettiar).
9. In AIR 1985 S.C. 582 cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that default simplicitor would not be sufficient to evict the tenant. It must further be shown that the default is wilful. Only when the default is wilful, the tenant can be evicted. Wilful default means, a deliberate and intentional default knowing fully well the legal consequences thereof.
10. In 1998(I) CTC 531 cited supra, this court held as follows:-
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, brought to my notice a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in Appavoo (dead) by L.Rs. V. Sree Dharma Vinayakan Dhamraraja Devasthanam, 1991 (1) M.L.J. 41. That case arose out of the judgment from the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Default was alleged in the payment of the rent.
There was a demand for a higher rent by the landlord. All the arrears of rent at the agreed rate was paid by the tenant. The appellate Judge took the conduct of the landlord demanding rent at a higher rate than the agreed rent into consideration as a circumstance to find against the landlord's plea that the tenant being a wilful defaulter. This reasoning is specifically referred to in the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of India. The Honourable Judges upheld the order of the appellate authority and set aside the order of eviction passed by this Court in the revision. In this case also, there is a demand for a higher rent which is at eight times the original rent. The landlords admitted before the court that the rent was only Rs.50/- and not Rs.400/-. This conduct of the landlords is also taken into account by me in holding that the tenant cannot be said to be guilty of committing a wilful default in the payment of the rent. It is no doubt true that the rent for the month of March 1983 sent by the tenant was refused by the landlords. It is also on record that the refused rent for March, 1983 was not sent again by the tenant. All the tenant brought to my notice a judgment of this Court reported in G.Kanniah Chetty V. H.Subramaniam (died) and others, 1994 T.L.N.J. 124. In that case also, the rent sent for February 1983 was refused by the landlord. The subsequent rents for the subsequent months alone were sent by the tenant and they were also refused. In that context, a similar argument was advanced before the learned single Judge and it was dealt with as follows:
"The point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under each month, he was sending only Rs.250 which represents only one month rent and no arrears of rent were sent. This contention is rightly repelled by the learned counsel for the respondent who would submit that once a valid tender is made, there is no need to make again a second tender with regard to the same amount. I find that this submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is correct. So, it cannot be stated that there was no valid tender."
Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that not sending the March, 1983 rent again, which was earlier refused, would in any way be held against the tenant. The rent for March, 1983 was validly tendered and illegally refused by the landlord.
9. For all the reasons stated above, I am of the firm opinion that the courts below have committed a serious error in law as well as on facts in holding that the tenant had committed wilful default. The learned counsel for the respondent brought to my notice a judgment of this Court, wherein it has been held that when the courts below concurrently found on a particular point against a party to it, it cannot be possible for this court to interfere in such a concurrent finding unless those findings could be attacked as perverse findings. I too agree with the law laid down by this Court. However at the same time, I do not want to lose sight of the fact that when the landlord had not established his case of wilful default, he is not entitled to an order of eviction. To grant relief in favour of the landlord in such a situation, would amount to rendering great injustice to a tenant. The power of revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings ( Lease and Rent Control) Act appears to be wider than the power of revision of this court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Section 25 of the above said Act, this Court can satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed. Under these circumstances and in view of the power of revision under Section 25 of the above Act, I am inclined to interfere in this case to render justice to the tenant. Accordingly the revision is allowed with cost. The cost is quantified at Rs.500.
11. In the above case, the arrears of rent was for three months from March 1983 to May 1983. When March 1983 rent was tendered by this tenant, it was refused by the landlords and thereafter rent was not sent and this court held that, not sending the rent of March 1983 again which was earlier refused, would not be held against the tenant. This court further held that under Sec.25 of the Act High court can satisfy itself as to the regularity of the proceedings before the authorities or correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed.
12. In 1999(III) CTC 512 cited supra, this court held that by failing to advert to the admission of the landlord regarding payment of rent by the tenant before filing of the RCOP itself and allowing the eviction petition, the authorities below committed material irregularity in the order of eviction.
13. In 2002-2-L.W.559 cited supra, this court held as follows:-
15. It is, further seen that the tenant issued notice under Ex.P-4 directing the landlord to specify the bank for depositing the rent. The above notice is dated 1.7.98 i.e., prior to the filing of R.C.O.P. The conduct of the tenant in sending two months rent by money order before the date of filing the R.C.O.P and issuing notice to the landlord directing him to specify the name of the bank to enable the tenant to deposit the rent, will only show that the tenant has not committed any wilful default in payment of rent. In any event, the above delay and conduct of the tenant will not amount to wilful default much less supine indifference. The Rent Controller has not properly adverted to the above aspect of the case and therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the finding of the Rent Controller, which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority, that the revision petition has committed wilful default is based on misreading of the evidence.
16. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also relies upon a decision of this Court reported in Tamil Nadu Motors V. N.Lakshmi (1999 -3-L.W 284), wherein it is held thus:-
"To arrive at a finding that the tenant is in wilful default, the mere fact that the tenant is in arrears of rent would not be enough and the Court has to consider whether there has been intentional violation of a clear obligation to pay the rent"
The Supreme Court had also occasion to consider a similar plea in the case reported in M/s.Chordia Automobiles V. Moosa (2000 (II) MLJ 10 8 = 2001-1-L.W. 737. In the above decision, the Supreme Court has held thus:-
"Further, the conduct of the appellant throughout in the past was not that of the defaulter or irregular payer of rent. Thus all these circumstances cumulatively come to only one conclusion that the appellant cannot be held to be a wilful defaulter"
Even though the payment of rent into Court after filing R.C.O.P is not relevant in deciding the question of wilful default, the conduct of the tenant in tendering two months rent by money order, even in the month of June 1998, will establish the case of the tenant that he has not committed wilful default. If the principles of law laid down in the above decisions are considered along with the admitted facts in this case, it would practically negative the contention of the landlord that the revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent. Hence, I hold that the findings of the Courts below that the tenant has committed wilful default are liable to be set aside.
14. In the above judgment, this court after considering the conduct of sending two months' rent by Money Order before the date of filing of the RCOP and issuing notice to the landlord directing him to specify the name of the bank to deposit the rent, held that the tenant has not committed wilful default.
15. In 2003-4-L.W.671 cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the tenant has always made an effort at paying or tendering the rent, the delay or default, if any, attributable to the tenant is bona fide and the same cannot be held to be wilful.
16. In 2004-3-L.W. 487 cited supra, this court after considering the conduct of the tenant in paying the monthly arrears from November 19 86 to March 1987 on the first hearing date of the RCOP, held that the petitioner has not committed any wilful default.
17. By relying on the above judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the delay attributable to the tenants is not wilful and therefore the orders of the authorities below are liable to be set aside.
18. In 2000-2-L.W.708 cited supra, this court held as follows:-
"14.Under Rent Control Act, rent is payable as and when it becomes due. It is a statutory obligation on the part of tenant to pay rent, according to the tenancy agreement. If any date is fixed for payment, the same will have to be paid within 15 days from the due date and if no fixed date is given for payment, by the end of month following the month for which rent is due. In case tenant is not paying the amount as per the provisions, he must be deemed to be defaulter in paying rent. By paying Rs.4,550/- on 18.3.1994 after filing application itself shows that tenant has committed default in payment of rent and that is why he has paid the amount in lump. Subsequent payment of Rs.975/- also makes it clear that more amount was due as on the date of eviction petition. So, the contention taken by tenant that he has paid entire rent as and when it becomes due was rightly rejected by Rent Controller as well as Appellate authority.
15. Even if the tenant has paid the entire rent during the course of proceedings, that by itself will not absolve him from contending that he is not wilful defaulter. AS rightly found by Appellate Authority, when the litigation is pending between parties, tenant should have been little more careful in paying rent as and when it became due to discharge the statutory obligation. Even from the counter, it is clear that he used to pay the amount in lump only and not on the due dates. From 21.11.1991 till 31.12.1993, i.e. for more than two years, tenant has paid only a sum of Rs.1,300/-, is admitted by him. That admission has been given importance by the Appellate Authority in his judgment. Appellate authority has stated thus, (Vernacular portion deleted)
16. If tenant has paid only four months rent during the entire period, naturally he has to explain why rent was not paid for more than 20 months. But at the same time, he took a false contention that he has paid the entire arrears and not liable to pay any rent. After having taken such a contention and paying the amount in lumpsum during the course of this proceedings shows that the intention of tenant was not bona fide and he has taken the contention knowing full well that the same is false. Under the above circumstances, he could be termed only as 'wilful defaulter'. By taking false contention, his intention is clear that he does not want to pay any rent unless he is compelled to do so. Authorities below are justified in holding that tenant is a wilful defaulter and he is liable to be evicted.
19. In the above case, this court held that there is a statutory obligation on the part of the tenant to pay the rent according to the agreement and if the tenant is not paying the rent as per the agreement, he is a defaulter. Even if he has paid the rent during the course of the proceedings, it would not absolve him from contending that he is not a wilful defaulter. Further, when the litigation is pending between parties, tenant should have been little more careful in paying rent as and when it became due to discharge the statutory obligation.
20. In the light of the above judgments let me consider the facts of the present case.
21. The only point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the non-payment of monthly arrears by the 1st petitioner for the period from September 1992 to August 1995 and for the subsequent period is wilful or not.
22. The reason given by the tenant for not depositing the rent in HRCOP No.2/1988 in which he got an order in his favour is that as the Power of Attorney passed away, he could not deposit the rent in that petition and therefore he filed another petition in HRCOP No.14/1990 for deposit of rent.
23. I am unable to accept this reason of the tenant became the death of the Power of Attorney does not abate the petition itself and the tenant can very well continue depositing the rent in HRCOP No.2/1988. Instead, he chose to file HRCOP No.14/1990 but the same was dismissed on 29.8.1993 for not taking steps to bring the Legal Representatives on record. The reason given by the tenant for not taking steps is that he could not get particulars of the Legal Representatives of the deceased Murugappa Chettiar despite his best efforts. This reason is also not acceptable to me, as, in the oral evidence of R.W.2, he has admitted that no steps were taken to pay the rent from 1992 to 19 96. He further deposed that the landlord and his children have been visiting the place for deepam and the temple at Thiruvannamalai for the past 20 years. In such circumstances, what prevented the tenant from approaching the children of the landlord f or the payment of rent is not at all explained by the tenants.
24. Insofar as the return of the demand draft and the money order is concerned, as already stated, in stead of paying the rent then and there, according to the agreement, the tenant has suddenly woken up from his slumber and sent a demand draft for three years rent in one lumpsum. In such circumstances, the landlord is within his right to return the demand draft as the tenant has violated his statutory obligation to pay the rent when it became due. Even otherwise, when it was returned, the tenant must invoke Sec.8(5) of the Act before the landlord gets a cause of action. Elaborate procedure is contemplated under Sec.8 of the Act and the provisions are to be strictly complied with by the tenant if he wants to take advantage of the same. The tenant has to take steps one after another as stipulated and only if the landlord still refuses to receive the rent, the tenant can come to court under Sec.8(5) of the Act. The tenant cannot jump procedural steps contemplated under Section 8 of the Act. It is obvious that the 1 st petitioner has not followed the procedures contemplated under Sec.8 of the Act and he has jumped the procedure in filing the HRCOP No.3/1996 and the same was also dismissed.
25. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the evidence on record would undoubtedly point an accusing finger at the tenant and both the authorities have rightly come to the conclusion on the basis of evidence that it is a case of wilful default. Sitting in revision under Sec.25of the Act 1960, I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities below as I do not find any illegality or irregularity or perversity in it.
26. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
II. C.R.P.NPD Nos.2314 & 2315 of 2005:
27. (a) C.R.P.NPD No.2315/2005:
C.R.P.NPD No.2315/2005 is filed against the judgment dated 29.8.2005 made in RCA No.7/1997. RCA No.7/1997 was filed by the 1st petitioner against the order dated 24.10.1997 made in RCOP No.3/1997. In RCOP No.3/1997, the revision petitioner prayed to permit him to deposit the rent from September 1992 to August 1996 and also the future rent into court. The revision petitioner has stated that he had filed a petition in HRCOP Nos.2/1988 and 14/1990 for depositing the rent. But he could not continue to do so as his Power of Attorney passed away and HRCOP No.14/1990 was dismissed for not having taken steps to bring the Legal Representatives of the deceased Murugappa Chettiar on record. Once he came to know about the respondent herein as the son of Murugappa Chettiar, he immediately sent a notice dated 14.7.1995 to him enclosing a demand draft for Rs.2,250/- being the arrears of rent for the period September 1992 to August 1995. But the same was returned by the respondent. He sent the rent for the period September 1995 to August 1996 by demand draft on 9.7.1996 and the same was also returned by the respondent. On 22.11.96 he sent a sum of Rs.1,000/- and another sum of Rs.2,000/- by money order. The same was refused by the respondent. Hence he filed the above petition under Sec.8(5) of the Act.
28. This petition was resisted by the respondent by filing a counter by stating that having filed two similar petitions for the same relief earlier the revision petitioner cannot be permitted to file another petition for the same relief. Having kept quiet for three years and failed to discharge statutory duties he cannot take recourse to Sec.8(5) of the Act.
29. The Rent Controller by order dated 24.10.1997 dismissed the petition by holding that having committed wilful default in the payment of rent, the revision petitioner should not be allowed to deposit the rent under Sec.8(5) of the Act. Against this order, the revision petitioner filed an appeal in RCA No.7/1997 and the Appellate Authority has also dismissed the appeal on 29.8.2005 by holding that having filed RCOP No.2/1988 and got a favourable order, the tenant should have continued to deposit the rent in that petition itself. Even another petition filed in RCOP No.14/1990 was allowed to be dismissed and having failed to pay the rent for the past three years without proper explanation, the revision petitioner should not be permitted to deposit the rent into court under Sec.8(5) of the Act. Challenging these orders, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant.
30. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the authorities below have committed illegality in not permitting the petitioner to deposit the rent.
31. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-landlord supported the orders of the authorities below relying on the judgment of this court reported in 1997-2-L.W. 567 ( Sundararajan, S. v. S.A.Viswanathan Chetty and another).
32. Sec.8 of the Act has to be read along with Sec.10(2)(i) of the Act. It is the statutory duty of the tenant to tender the rent in accordance with Sections 10 (2)(i) of the Act. It means that Sec.8 of the Act should be invoked by the tenant before the landlord gets a cause of action for non-payment of rent in time. A defaulter is not entitled to the benefits of the Act. Once the landlord gets cause of action, the subsequent refusal by the landlord is justified. When a tenant invokes Section 8(5) of the Act, it is his duty to pay the rent in court as and when it becomes due. Instead of actually paying the rent to landlord, he gets discharged by paying the rent in court. That means, the court becomes the agent of the landlord and gives the tenant a discharge. Having committed default wilfully and intentionally, fully knowing about the consequences arising thereof, a tenant is not entitled to invoke Sec.8(5) of the Act.
33. In this case, it is not in dispute that the revision petitioner filed HRCOP No.2/1988 and got a favourable order for depositing the rent. No acceptable reason was given by the tenant for discontinuing the deposit of rent in that petition except by saying that Power of Attorney who initiated the petition passed away. The second petition filed for the same relief in HRCOP No.14/1990 was also allowed to be dismissed. Thereafter, admittedly no rent was paid and only in June 1995, a demand draft was taken for the rental arrears for the period from September 1992 to August 1995 and sent to the respondentlandlord. Except by saying that he was not able to find out the Legal Representatives of Murugappa Chettiar, no other reason was given for the default of three years. Even the evidence let in would prove that the Legal Representatives are visiting the place of the tenant every now and then and in such circumstances, the tenant committed wilful default as held by me in C.R.P.NPD No.2313/2005. Therefore, a cause of action arose for the landlord for evicting the tenant and applying the law laid down by this court in 1997-2- L.W. 567 (supra), this revision petition is liable to be dismissed and the orders of the authorities below are to be upheld.
(b) C.R.P.No.2314/2005:
34. This revision petition has been filed by the same tenant who filed C.R.P.(NPD)No.2313 of 2005 and C.R.P.(NPD) No.2315/2005. In this case, the revision petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 29.8.2005 rendered in RCA No.3/2003. RcA No.3/2003 was filed against the order dated 25.2.2003 made in HRCOP No.9/200 0, dismissing the petition filed by the revision petitioner, permitting him to deposit the rent from September 2000 to August 2001 and also the future rent into court. In HRCOP No.9/2000, the petitioner has stated that as he was not able to trace the legal heirs of Murugappa Chettiar, in spite of his best efforts, he could not send the rent for the period from September 1992 to August 1995. In July 1995 he came to know about the 3rd respondent as the son of the deceased Murugappa Chettair and immediately he sent the rent for the period by sending demand draft but the same was refused by the 3rd respondent. He again sent another demand draft for the period from September 1995 to August 1995 and the same was also refused. Thereafter, he sent two money orders for a sum of Rs.3,000/- and that was also refused. He file d HRCOP No.3/1997 to deposit the rent from September 1992 to August 1996 and after contest it was dismissed and the appeal filed by him in RCA No.7/1997 is pending. In the meanwhile, the eviction petition was filed by the respondents herein in HRCOP No.16/1998 and pending HRCOP.No.16/1998 the revision petitioner paid a sum of Rs.4,500/- being the rent for the period September 1992 to August 1998 and thereafter he he paid another sum of Rs.1,500/- for the period from September 1998 to August 2000. These amounts were paid to the counsel for the respondents herein. But when the rent was paid for the period September 2000 to August 2001 to the very same counsel by the petitioner herein, he refused to receive the same. Thereafter, he sent the rent by money order and the same was returned by the 3rd respondent. Hence he filed the above petition under Sec.8(5)of the Act. It was resisted by the 3rd respondent herein by filing a counter. The Rent Controller by order dated 25.2.2 003 dismissed the same by holding that the tenant has failed to follow the procedure enumerated under Sec.8 of the Act. The appeal filed in RCA No.3/2003 was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 29.8.2005. The Appellate Authority considered the facts that the tenant already filed HRCOP Nos.2/1988 and 14/1990 and RCOP No.3/1997 to deposit the rent into court and held that the tenant would not be permitted to file one application after another when he could have very well deposited the rent either in HRCOP Nos.2/1988 or 14/1990. Having failed to deposit in the above HRCOPs., the Appellate Authority held that the tenant cannot be permitted to deposit now in this petition, that too, after committing wilful default. Challenging this order, the above revision petition has been filed.
35. I have already dismissed CRP NPD No.2315/2005 and the reasons given by me for dismissal of CRP NPD No.2315/2005 would apply mutatis mutandis to this CRP NPD No.2314/2005 also. I have also dismissed CRP NPD No.2313/2005 thereby confirming the orders of the eviction passed against the revision petitioner by the authorities below on the ground of wilful default. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities below in not permitting the petitioner herein to deposit the rent under Sec.8(5) of the Act. Hence this CRP NPD No.2314/2005 is liable to be dismissed.
36. In the result, all these three Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. C.M.P.No.20860/2005 is also dismissed.
sks To
1.The Principal Sub-Judge, Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.