Madras High Court
S.Kalaimani vs N.Sadasivam on 8 February, 2023
Author: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
Bench: V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
C.R.P.No.30 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.02.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE Mrs.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
C.R.P.No.30 of 2020
C.M.P.No.153 of 2020
1. S.Kalaimani
2. Pathri @ J.S.Sankar Jagadesh ... Petitioners
Vs.
N.Sadasivam ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamilnadu Building
Lease and Rent Control Act 18/1960, as amended by Act 23/1973 and Act
1/1980 to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 19.10.2019 passed
in R.C.A.No.7 of 2019 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate
Authority (Principal Sub Judge, Erode) reversing the order passed in
R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2018 dated 15.03.2019 on the file of the learned Rent
Controller (Principal District Munsif, Erode).
For Petitioners : Mr.V.S.Kesavan
For Respondent : Ms.Sase for
Mr.M.Guruprasad
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
C.R.P.No.30 of 2020
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 19.10.2019 passed in R.C.A.No.7 of 2019 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Judge, Erode) reversing the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2018 dated 15.03.2019 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif, Erode).
2. The brief facts of the case in the nutshell are as follows:-
The respondent, who is the petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2018 is the tenant and the petitioners, who are the respondents in the said petition are the landlords. The said petition was filed to permit the respondent / petitioner to deposit the rent amount at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per month for the period between June 2018 and July 2018 and also to deposit future rent to the court, on the ground that the petitioners refused to receive the amount and hence, the rent was sent through money order and again, the same was also returned. The petitioners / respondents resisted the same by way of filing a counter. The said petition was dismissed. As against the same, the respondent/tenant, preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.7 of 2019 and counter was filed by the petitioners, the said appeal was allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority by reversing the finding in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10 C.R.P.No.30 of 2020 R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2018. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners / landlord have filed the present Revision Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners / landlord submits that the respondent / tenant sent the rent for the month of June 2018 at the rate of Rs.12,000/- to the petitioners. Since the respondent / tenant agreed to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.20,000/-, the petitioners did not receive the same. Thereafter, the respondent / tenant did not come forward to pay the agreed enhanced rent and if the respondent has sent the enhanced rent of Rs.20,000/-, the petitioners would not have returned the money order. The sole intention of the respondent is to continue the tenancy at the rate of Rs.12,000/- only, for which the respondent is not entitled to. Since the procedures enumerated under Sections 8(1) to 8(4) of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act has not been followed, the court below dismissed the said petition. As against the same, the respondents / landlord preferred an appeal, in the said appeal, the appellate authority held that deliberately the bank account particulars is not given by the landlord, hence allowed the said appeal. As against the same, this present petition has been preferred, thereby pleaded to set aside the order passed by the appellate authority.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10 C.R.P.No.30 of 2020
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention has relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2002 (4) CTC 72 [E.Palanisamy Vs. Palanisamy (D) by Lrs. And others and the Order of this Court in C.R.P.No.1006 of 2020 [S.Kalaimani and another Vs. A.Mohaideen].
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent / tenant submitted that the petition mentioned property is a shop and took on lease on 01.06.1976 and running coffee works shop. When the respondent tried to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- to the petitioners towards rent for the month of June, 2018, the petitioners refused to receive the same and therefore, sent the same through money order and the same was returned. The appellate authority has rightly held that the bank particulars was deliberately not given by the petitioners / landlord and the same being admitted in the counter by the petitioners themselves, the appellate authority has rightly allowed the prayer sought for by the respondent, which require no interference, thereby sought to dismiss the present petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the documents and the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the order of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10 C.R.P.No.30 of 2020
7. At this juncture, it is useful to refer Section 8(2) to 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, [for brevity, hereinafter referred to as Act] which reads as follows:
"8(2) Where a landlord refuses to accept, or evades the receipt of, any rent lawfully payable to him by a tenant in respect of any building, the tenant may, by notice in writing, require the landlord to specify within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice by him, a bank into which the rent may be deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlord:
Provided that such bank shall be one situated in the city, town or village in which the building is situated or if there is no such bank in such city, town or village, within five kilometres of the limits thereof. Explanation.- It shall be open to the landlord to specify from time to time by a written notice to the tenant and subject to the proviso aforesaid, a bank different from the one already specified by him under this sub-section.
(3)If the landlord specifies a bank as aforesaid, the tenant shall deposit the rent in the bank and shall continue to deposit in it any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building.
(4)If the landlord does not specify a bank as aforesaid, the tenant shall remit the rent to the landlord by Money Order, after deducting the money order commission.
(5) If the landlord refuses to receive the rent remitted by Money Order under sub-section (4), the tenant may deposit the rent before the Controller and continue to deposit with him any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building."
8. From the perusal of the above statutory provision, it is evident that there must be refusal to accept the rent by the landlord, which is lawfully payable to the landlord by a tenant, and if it is refused to be received, the tenant shall issue a notice in writing requesting the landlord to specify https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10 C.R.P.No.30 of 2020 within ten days the bank details in which the rent may be deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlord and if the landlord specifies a bank, the tenant shall deposit the rent in bank and shall continue to deposit the rent and if the landlord does not specify the bank, the tenant shall send the rent to the landlord by money order after taking money order commission. If the landlord refuses to receive the rent sent by money order, then only the application under Section 8(5) of the Act to deposit the rent before the Rent Controller can be filed.
9. Admittedly in this case, the Tenant/respondent has not proved tendering of the rent, lawfully payable by him, to the Landlord. Straightaway the Tenant sent the rent through money order for the month of June 2018, which was admittedly returned as refused. From the petition and the order passed by the court below, it is seen that only after resorting to Section 8(4) of the Act, the tenant has resorted to Section 8(2) of the Act by issuing notice in writing requiring the landlord to specify their bank account within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice.
10. From the above it is evident that after sending money order only, the Tenant had requested the Landlord to specify the bank, within ten days of notice in writing. Admittedly, the Tenant has sent the money order without following the above procedure, which was also returned. Therefore the mandatory conditions contained in the above provisions viz., Sections https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10 C.R.P.No.30 of 2020 8(2) to 8(4) are not followed by the Tenant before filing the application under Section 8(5) of the Act.
11. To decide the question as to whether the petition filed under Section 8(5) of the Act is maintainable without following the above steps, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court [E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy,] reported in 2002 (4) CTC 572, wherein it is held as follows:
“The statue contains express provisions. It prescribes various steps which a tenant is required to take. In Section 8 of the Act, the procedure to be followed by the tenant is given step by step. An earlier step is a pre-condition for the next step. The tenant has to observe the procedure as prescribed in the statute. A strict compliance of the procedure is necessary. The tenant cannot straight away jump to the last step, i.e, to deposit rent in court. The last step can come only after the earlier steps have been followed by the tenant.”
12. At this juncture, it is important to note that if the landlord refuse to accept rent from tenant, then, tenant shall issue a notice in writing requesting landlord to specify the bank details within ten days wherein rent may be deposited by tenant. If landlord specifies a bank, then tenant shall deposit rent in that bank and shall continue to deposit rent. If landlord does not specify bank, tenant shall send rent to landlord by money order. If landlord refuses to receive rent sent by money order, then only application https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 C.R.P.No.30 of 2020 under Section 8(5) of the Act to deposit rent before Rent Controller can be filed, as opined by this Court in C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No.475 and 476 of 2004.
13. In the light of the decisions cited supra and in view of violation of the said statutory provisions contained in the Act, by the tenant before filing the application under Section 8(5) of the Act, the application filed by the respondent / Tenant to deposit the rent before the Rent Controller, is not maintainable and hence the learned Rent Controller rightly dismissed R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2018. The reversal of the said order by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.7 of 2019 is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.
In the result, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 19.10.2019 in R.C.A.No.7 of 2019 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode, is set aside and that of the Rent Controller cum Principal District Munsif, Erode in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2018 dated 15.3.2019 is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
.02.2023 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking / Nonspeaking order ssd https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/10 C.R.P.No.30 of 2020 To
1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Principal Subordinate Judge, Erode
2.The Rent Controller cum Principal District Munsif, Erode https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10 C.R.P.No.30 of 2020 V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN J.
ssd C.R.P.No.30 of 2020 C.M.P.No.153 of 2020 08.02.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10