Madras High Court
G. Selvam vs B. Rajyalakshmi on 30 June, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)3MLJ385
ORDER AR. Ramalingam, J.
1. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority cum VIII Judge of Small Causes Court, Chennai in M.P.No.17 of 2002 in R.C.A.No.294 of 2001 filed against the order passed by the Rent Controller cum XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in M.P.No.566 of 2000 in R.C.O.P.No.1082 of 1998, the revision petitioner/tenant viz., one G.Selvam has filed this revision petition.
2. For the purpose of disposal of this revision, the following background based upon the material facts have to be taken into consideration. The landlady Rajyalakshmi filed R.C.O.P.No.1082 of 1998 on the grounds of wilful default and requirement for own occupation. While it was pending, the landlady filed petition in M.P.No.566 of 2000 under Section 11(4) of the (Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act praying therewith that the tenant has no right to contest the main R.C.O.P without paying the arrears of rent. Consequently, the Rent Controller dismissed the said M.P.No.566 of 2000 on the basis that wilful default cannot be attributed against the tenant inasmuch as the landlady was having advance of Rs.50,000/= and the arrears from February 1999 to October 2000 at the rate of Rs.2220/= per month for 21 months comes to Rs.46,620/= only and after deducting the said amount and one month's rent as advance, a sum of Rs.1160/= still remains with the landlady by way of advance amount.
3. Aggrieved against such dismissal order, the landlady filed R.C.A.No.294 of 2001 before the appellate authority by saying that Rs.50,000/= was not an advance amount and it was given by the tenant as security deposit and it would be returnable only at the time of vacating the premises by the tenant and therefore no question of adjusting the rents in the advance amount arises and consequently, there is wilful default and arrears of rent and the dismissal order passed by the Rent Controller should be set aside. While the said R.C.A was pending, again, the landlady filed M.P. No. 396 of 2001 in R.C.A. No. 294 of 2001 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act praying there with that the tenant has no right to contest the R.C.A without paying the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.64,380/= being arrears upto June 2001 and thereby the proceedings should be stopped and eviction should be ordered. Consequently, the appellate authority, after considering the contentions of either side, has come to the conclusion that even after adjusting the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.37,740/=, still a sum of Rs.12,260/= remains to be paid and the said sum of Rs.12,260/= was ordered to be deposited on or before 20.9.2001 and consequently, the matter was adjourned to 21.9.2001 by the appellate authority and since the said amount was not deposited within the time, he allowed in M.P.No.396 of 2001 under Section 11(4) and however, he inadvertently passed the consequential order in R.C.A.No.294 of 2001 to the effect that the R.C.A is dismissed. Again the very same appellate authority, amended the same by saying that R.C.A.No.294 of 2001 is allowed and two months time was given to the tenant to vacate the premises.
4. Thereupon, the tenant/revision petitioner has chosen to file this civil revision petition before this court against the said order of amendment by way of M.P.No.17 of 2002 in R.C.A.No.294 of 2001 which itself was filed against the order passed in M.P.No.566 of 2000 in R.C.O.P.No.1082 of 1998 by saying that the appellate authority has not applied his mind and failed to hold that there was no wilful default and arrears of rent and particularly the appellate authority has refused to entertain the petition in M.P.No.543 of 2001 filed by the tenant under Section 151 C.P.C for the purpose of permitting him either to pay Rs.12,260/= directly to the landlady or to deposit the same into court and the same has been dismissed as not maintainable on 21.9.2001 itself i.e., one day after expiry of the time given by the appellate authority in M.P.No.396 of 2001 and that is why the tenant has chosen to file the civil revision petition for setting aside the said order passed by the appellate authority in the main R.C.A.No.294 of 2001.
5. Arguments of both side were heard in detail. It is needless to point out that as per Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, no tenant can have right to contest any proceedings under the said Act without paying rents and particularly the arrears of rent. Likewise, it is also needless to point out that "wilful default" has to be appreciated in the light of conduct of a particular tenant in paying the rents and other attending circumstances of such conduct.
6. On going through the available material records in this case, I am able to understand that the tenant/revision petitioner has been ordered to be evicted in connection with another premises in the first floor of the same building wherein the premises concerned with this R.C.O.P also is lying and that further the tenant/revision petitioner has been evicted through court in pursuance of the eviction order passed in another R.C.O.P and the landlady also appears to have filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent. It is also clear that the tenant/revision petitioner has not chosen to pay the rents regularly month after month to the landlady and he has gone to the extent of exposing his conduct in paying the arrears of rent in lumpsum in pursuance of the orders of the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority and even as per the orders of this court in the connected other civil revision petitions. In such circumstances, it goes without saying that the tenant/revision petitioner appears to be adopting the habit of paying the rents in lumpsum as arrears.
7. In this context, it is to be noted that a tenant is expected to pay monthly rent regularly without default much less wilful default within meaning of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and it is not necessary for the landlady to demand monthly rent or take Section 11(4) petition for the purpose of collecting rent. But, in this case, the tenant/revision petitioner was not prompt in paying rents month after month regularly but also has gone to the extent of contesting Section 11(4) petitions before the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority by taking a stand as if the landlady can adjust the rents with the available amount with her as deposit and if such adjustment is made, wilful default may not arise. However, the fact remains that even after such adjustment, the rent arrears were shown to be existing before the appellate authority and thereafter even before this court, after filing of this revision petition. That is why, the tenant/revision petitioner was not ready to deposit Rs.12,260/= as ordered by the appellate authority in Section 11(4) petition within the time allowed by him and curiously he has chosen to come forward with the petition after expiry of the stipulated period i.e., on 21.9.2001 with the contention as if he may be permitted to pay the rents directly or deposit the same into court. There was nothing to prevent the petitioner/tenant from depositing the ordered amount within the time stipulated by the appellate authority. In such circumstances and taking note of the conduct of the tenant, I am of the view that the order passed by the appellate authority which is questioned in this revision petition does not appear to be illegal or unreasonable in a way for this court to interfere with such order.
8. Accordingly, I am of the view that this revision petition has no merits for interference by this court. Consequently, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.