Madras High Court
K.Sanjeevi Kumar vs P.Somasundaram on 13 April, 2006
Author: S.R.Singharavelu
Bench: S.R.Singharavelu
Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Dated : 13/04/2006 Coram The Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.R.Singharavelu Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.192 of 2006 K.Sanjeevi Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. P.Somasundaram .... Respondent Civil Revision Petition under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, 1960 as stated therein. !For Petitioner .. Mr.D.Rajendiran ^For Respondent .. Mr.M.Vallinayagam. ORDER:
Tenant is the Revision Petitioner. His application under Section 8 of the Act was allowed by the Rent Controller(District Munsif), Kovilpatti, by its order dated 1.6.2005 in its R.C.O.P.No.16 of 2004, which was reversed on appeal in R.C.A.No.7 of 2005 in its order dated 15.11.2005 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub-Court), Koilpatti. Aggrieved over the order in the above said R.C.A., this Civil Revision Petition was filed.
2. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not in dispute. The Respondent/landlord purchased the tenement by a Registered sale deed dated 4.3.2004 . It is incumbent on the part of the Respondent/landlord to have communicated his acquiring the title in the tenement by purchase, which of course was not done in this case. Despite the said fact the Revision Petitioner/Tenant has prepared to send the monthly rent of Rs.1500/- due for the month of March 2004 to the Respondent/landlord by a Money Order coupon marked as Ex.P6 and it is found on the back side of which an endorsement made by the landlord refusing to receive the same. The Revision Petitioner had also sent a notice dated 2.4.2004 through Ex.P4 requiring the Respondent to receive the above said monthly rent of March 2004 sent by him through Ex.P6 Money Order. Notice was acknowledged on 6.4.2004 by the Respondent who refused to receive the rent sent by him through Ex.P6 Money Order.
3. The Revision Petitioner/Tenant prepared to send a notice dated 6.5.2004 through Ex.P7 requiring the landlord to mention the name of the bank for the purpose of making deposit that was acknowledged by the landlord through Ex.P8. But there was no reply. The explanation offered for not replying was discussed in the judgment of the trial Court and it was rightly not accepted. It was alleged that due to the illness of the father of the landlord he could not reply; but the circumstances in the case do show that there was ample time for him to have replied which he has not chosen to do. So, the said explanation offered by the Respondent/landlord is unacceptable.
4. Finding that the landlord did not reply the Revision Petitioner/tenant has chosen to send the rent for the months of March to May 2004 through Ex.P9 Money Order Coupon, the receipt of which was marked as Ex.P.10 dated 17.6.2004 and that was also not received. Therefore, the petition seeking permission to deposit the rent into Court was filed by this Revision Petitioner in this R.C.O.P.
5. The learned counsel for the Respondent/landlord submitted that what was contemplated under Section 8(2) was offering of rent by cash and that has not been done in this case. It was further submitted that sending the rent by Money Order was contemplated only in sub-clause (4) of Section 8 preceding which notice to the landlord requiring him to name the bank for depositing the rent should have been sent. It was further pointed out that in this case Money Order was sent prior to the notice of tenant requiring the landlord to specify the name of the bank and not succeeding that as contemplated in sub-clause (4) of Section 8.
6. In this connection I would like to cull out the concerned provision of law. Section 8 reads as follows:-
"(1) Every landlord who receives any payment towards rent or advance shall issue a receipt duly signed by him for the actual amount of rent or advance received by him.
(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:
... ...
(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."
7. True, it is that sub-clause (4) of Section 8 provides that if the landlord does not specify the bank as found in sub-clause (3), the tenant shall send the rent by Money Order and in case if it was refused, the tenant under sub-clause (5) may deposit the rent into Court.
8. It is equally true that sub-clause (2) provides that where landlord refuses to accept, or evades the receipt of, any rent the tenant may send a notice requiring the landlord to specify the bank in which the rent may be deposited.
9. But to say that the contents of sub-clause (2) and (3) are prerequisite for sending the rent by Money Order is only hyper technical. That presupposes as if proviso (2) to Section 8 expressly indicates payment of rent is only by cash. But the text in sub-clause (2) as it stands is not to that effect.
10. Sub-clause (2) deals with, "rent lawfully payable". "Lawfully payable", means not necessarily to be paid specifically in cash in person. The rent contractually due shall have to be paid lawfully." This is what sub- clause(2) connotes. Even tender of such rent by Money Order is due payment under sub-clause (2) of Section 8.
11. Here is a case where the Revision Petitioner/tenant's, S.R.SINGHARAVELU,J gr.
however in this case, the notice to name a bank was dated 6.5.2004, it is both prior to and subsequent to the said notice Money Order dated 2.4.2004 and 17.6.2004 respectively through Exs.P6 and P9 Coupons were tendered. Thus, sub- clause (2) and (4) of Section 8 are complied with. Sub-clause (3) does not arise in this case as landlord failed to specify the bank. Therefore the effect of sub-clause (5) will have to be given and the Revision Petitioner shall be allowed to deposit the rent in Court.
12. This Civil Revision Petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 15.11.2005 made in R.C.A.No.7 of 2005 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub-Court), Koilpatti is set aside. The order dated 1.6.2005 made in R.C.O.P.No.16 of 2004, by the Rent Controller(District Munsif), Kovilpatti is restored.
gr.
To
1. The Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub-Judge),Kovilpatti
2. The Rent Controller, (District Munsif)Kovilpatti.