Madras High Court
N.Ramalingam vs Selvam on 5 October, 2012
Author: P.R.Shivakumar
Bench: P.R.Shivakumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on: 27.10.2014 Delivered on: 30.10.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.R.P (NPD) No.3361 of 2013 1.N.Ramalingam 2.R.Tamilselvi ...Petitioners Both petitioners are represented by their Power of Attorney Mr.P.Jaganathan S/o.Ponnusamy No.15, Vaaranavaasi Gounder Street Edayankattuvalasu Erode 635 001 vs. Selvam ...Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order made in C.F.R.No.11482 of 2012 in R.C.O.P.No.29 of 2011 dated 05.10.2012 on the file of the Rent Controller, Erode. For Petitioners : Mr.R.Bharanidharan For Respondent : Mr.N.Manokaran ---- ORDER
This revision has been preferred against the order of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Erode dated 05.10.2012 made in C.F.R.No.11482 of 2012 in R.C.O.P.No.29 of 2011.
2. The first petitioner is the husband of the second petitioner. Both of them through their Power of Attorney Mr.P.Jaganathan filed a petition for eviction of the respondent herein from a non-residential portion in Door No.90, Gandhiji Road, Erode in which the respondent herein is running an Electrical shop as a tenant. The eviction petition came to be filed for evicting the respondent herein on the ground of willful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and to direct the respondent to put the petitioners in possession of the building under Section 10(3)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
3. The said petition for eviction, which was taken on file as R.C.O.P.No.29 of 2011, came to be filed on the basis of the petition averments that the property comprising of various shops, hotel and lodge originally belonged to one Arjun Manradiyar; that the said Arjun Manradiyar settled the said property in favour of his son Mahendra Manradiyar and from Mahendra Manradiyar, the petitioners jointly purchased the property for a sale consideration of Rs.5,01,00,000/- under a sale deed dated 14.02.2010; that the respondent herein had became a tenant under the original owner Arjun Manradiyar in respect of the petition premises, namely a shop portion in the said premises bearing Door No.90, (in the original petition door number was given as 93 and the same has been corrected to Door No.90 by virtue of order dated 19.01.2012 made in I.A.No.116 of 2011), Gandhiji Road, Erode for running an Electrical shop on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/-; that after the purchase of the said property by the petitioners under the sale deed dated 14.02.2010, the said fact was communicated to the respondent and he was required to pay the rent to the petitioners by a registered communication dated 25.10.2010; that the respondent, who received the said communication, without complying with the demand, sent a reply dated 28.10.2010 refusing to comply with the demand; that pursuant to the said reply, a statutory notice asking the respondent to pay the arrears of rent within 15 days was sent to the respondent on 09.11.2010; that the respondent, who received the said communication also on 10.11.2010, failed to comply with the demand made therein and that the adamant refusal on the part of the respondent to pay the rent to the petitioners amounted to willful default as the denial of title of the petitioners was not a bonafide and on the other hand, a malafide one with the intention of making wrongful gain by not making payment of rent for the premises occupied by the respondent as a tenant.
4. The respondent chose to contest the R.C.O.P by filing a counter containing the sentence wise denial of the petition averments. In addition to the denial of each and every allegation made in the petition, the respondent had also contended in the counter statement that though the sale deed in favour of the petitioners was dated 14.02.2010, the same was registered after 3 months, namely on 10.05.2010; that the sale deed contained recitals as if actual physical possession of the property conveyed under the sale deed was delivered to the purchasers therein on the date of alleged sale deed itself; that the said sale deed with such recitals came to be executed with the sole aim of evicting the respondent by force without adopting due process of law and that since the petitioners could not achieve the said goal, they came forward with the eviction petition with false averments. Though the respondent, in the earlier paragraphs, namely paragraphs Nos.1 to 4, of the counter statement would have denied even his status as a tenant in respect of the petition premises, in the subsequent paragraphs, he has admitted that he is running a Electrical shop in the petition premises. However, he contended that the actual Door No. is "90" and not "93" as contended in the eviction petition. Further averments made in the counter statement are that he became a tenant in respect of the petition premises about three years prior to the date of filing of his counter statement under Arjun Manradiar; that at the inception of tenancy, he paid an advance of Rs.50,000/-; that the contractual rent was Rs.2,000/- per month and not Rs.4,000/- per month as contended by the petitioners; that the respondent was making payment of rent regularly to Arjun Manradiar without any arrears; that therefore there was no willful default and that the denial of title was a bonafide one. Based on the averments found in the counter statement, he had prayed for the dismissal of the R.C.O.P.
5. Pending disposal of the R.C.O.P, the petitioners (landlords) filed a petition in I.A.No.58 of 2011 in R.C.O.P.No.29 of 2011 under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, praying for an order directing the respondent/tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within a time to be fixed by the Rent Controller and continue to deposit the future rent and order eviction of the respondent from the petition premises in the event of non-compliance. In the counter statement filed by the respondent in the said Interlocutory application, the defence plea taken in the counter filed in the main R.C.O.P was repeated and it was contended further that the petition filed under Section 11 of the Act was not maintainable as the denial of title of the petitioners was bonafide and hence, the Civil Court alone and not the Rent Controller got jurisdiction to entertain the petition for eviction.
6. In the enquiry that was conducted in the said Interlocutory Application, Exs.P1 to P8 were marked on the side of the petitioners, whereas Ex.R1 was marked as the sole document on the side of the respondent. No witness was examined on both sides.
7. The learned Rent Controller, after hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, considered the pleadings and evidence in the light of the points convassed on behalf of both parties in the arguments and came to the conclusion that the petitioners were entitled to a direction directing the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month (the admitted rent) within a month from the date of the order passed by the Rent Controller in the said petition and continue to deposit the future rent on or before 10th day of the succeeding month. It was also ordered therein that in the event of non-compliance, the defence would be struck off and eviction would be ordered. Challenging the said order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the Rent Controller, the respondent herein preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.13 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Erode.
8. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, after hearing, dismissed the appeal confirming the order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the Rent Controller in I.A.No.58 of 2011 by a judgment dated 12.07.2012 without costs. However, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority directed the respondent to deposit the admitted rent for the period between the date of filing of I.A.No.58 of 2011 in R.C.O.P.No.29 of 2011 and the date of judgment of the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.13 of 2012 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month within one month from the date of judgment of the Appellate Authority and continue to pay the future rent on or before 10th day of the succeeding month. The said judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority was pronounced on 12.07.2012.
9. The dismissal of the appeal was informed to the Rent Controller by a memo dated 27.07.2012 by the petitioners herein and by a further memo dated 21.08.2012, the fact that the respondent herein failed to deposit the arrears of rent in accordance with the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dated 12.07.2012 within a month from the date of the said order was also informed to the Rent Controller. The petitioners also prayed that the learned Rent Controller might be pleased to pass an order of eviction against the respondent. After the filing of the said memo informing the learned Rent Controller that the direction was not complied with, the revision petitioners also filed a memo on 31.08.2012 informing the failure on the part of the respondent to comply with the direction and praying that the learned Rent Controller should pass necessary orders striking off the defence of the respondent/tenant and an order of eviction directing the tenant to put the petitioners in possession of the petition property.
10. For the said memo, the respondent herein/tenant filed an objection stating that though the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent, the respondent was granted time for one month for compliance; that since the order copy was not supplied in time, the respondent was unaware of the date from which the time granted for compliance with the direction to be counted; that on the other hand, he reasonably would plead that the time granted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority would start only from the date of supply of the copy of the order of the Appellate Authority and that therefore, the deposit of arrears of rent subsequently would amount to substantial, if not proper compliance with the direction.
11. Admittedly the order of the Rent Controller as per the order dated 31.10.2011 as modified / confirmed by the judgment of the Appellate Authority dated 12.07.2012, was not complied by making deposit of the arrears of admitted rent on or before 12.08.2012, the last date for deposit of the same, according to the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. However, after the expiry of the cut off date granted by the Appellate Authority, perhaps pursuant to the memo filed by the petitioners informing the Rent controller of the default committed by the respondent, the respondent sought the permission of the Rent Controller to deposit the arrears of rent into the court of Rent Controller by filing the lodgment schedule dated 10.09.2012. Such a permission was accorded by the Rent Controller. Contending that the Rent Controller had become functus officio by virtue of the fact that the respondent failed to comply with the order of the Appellate Authority within the time granted by the Appellate Authority; that the Rent Controller had no scope for extending the time for deposit and that the belated deposit of the amount would not amount to compliance with the order of the Court, the petitioners prayed for an order striking off the defence of the respondent and directing passing an order of eviction directing the tenant to put the petitioners in possession of the petition property. The respondent filed an objection stating that the Rent Controller did not become functus officio insofar as the rental arrears was deposited within the time extended by the Rent Controller and the same would amount to proper compliance with the direction. He also prayed that the memo had to be recorded along with the objection.
12. The learned Rent Controller, after hearing both sides in the memo bearing C.F.R.No.11482 of 2012, passed the impugned order dated 05.10.2012 holding that though the Rent Control Appellate Authority might have confirmed the order of the Rent Controller and granted time for one month for making deposit of the arrears of rent, the Rent Controller had got every power to extend the time; that since within the time granted by the Rent Controller, the arrears of rent came to be deposited by the respondent, the prayer of the revision petitioners would amount to a prayer for review of such an order and that such relief could not be granted. Based on the said observations, the learned Rent Controller rejected the memo dated 31.08.2012. The said order of the Rent Controller dated 05.10.2012 made in C.F.R.No. 11482 of 2012 is under challenge in the present revision preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on various grounds set out in the grounds of revision.
13. The point that arises for consideration in the revision is whether the learned Rent Controller has acted without jurisdiction or exceeded his jurisdiction by extending the time for depositing the arrears of rent when such time was granted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and in accepting the deposit after the expiry of the time granted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority without passing a consequential order striking off the defence and ordering eviction of the respondent under Section 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960?
14. The arguments advanced by Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and by Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The copy of the impugned order and other materials produced in the form of typed-set of papers were also perused and taken into consideration.
15. Mr.R.Bharanidharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that the learned Rent Controller, without jurisdiction and exceeding his jurisdiction, permitted the respondent herein/tenant to deposit the arrears of rent as determined by the Rent Control Appellate Authority beyond the time granted by the Appellate Authority for such deposit, which shall have the effect of the lower authority, namely the Rent Controller extending the time granted by the Appellate Authority. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that once the conditional order passed by the Rent Controller came to be confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority with a direction to comply with the same within the time granted by the Appellate Authority, if any clarification or extension of time was needed, the respondent ought to have approached the Rent Control Appellate Authority and not the lower authority, namely the learned Rent Controller, for such an order having the effect of extending the time granted by the higher forum, namely the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that once the direction issued by the Rent Control Appellate Authority for deposit of the arrears of rent was not complied with within the time granted by the Appellate Authority, the consequences would follow automatically and the Rent Controller had no other option than to pass the consequential order under Section 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Buldings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1960. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended further that the deposit of the arrears of rent, after the lapse of the time granted by the appellate authority, shall be of no consequence and no effect on the conditional order and that once the direction was not complied with within the time and the time granted by the Appellate Authority is allowed to elapse, the lower authority, namely the learned Rent Controller, ought to have passed an order of eviction under Section 11(4) of the Act holding that the deposit of the arrears of rent after the expiry of the time granted by the Appellate Authority would not save the respondent from the consequences of his failure to comply with the direction issued in the conditional order. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that an order of the High Court, which was not followed, but a contrary view was expressed by the Apex Court in the subsequent judgments came to be relied on by the learned Rent Controller to hold that the Rent Controller had got the power to extend the time for complying with the conditional order, though such a conditional order would have been passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
16. On the other hand, Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the respondent contended that since the learned Rent Controller passed an order accepting the deposit of arrears of rent after the time granted by the Appellate Authority had lapsed, holding that he did have the power to grant extension of time, the order cold not be challenged as one passed without jurisdiction or exceeding jurisdiction and it could not also be said to be contrary to the settled question so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the present revision and that on the said score alone the revision petition should be dismissed. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the learned Rent Controller simply followed an order of this Court passed in a similar revision petition stating that when the Appellate Authority had granted stay of operation of the order of the Rent Controler, but ultimately dismissed the appeal and a revision therefrom came to be dismissed, the grant of extension of time thereafter by the Rent Controller for deposit of the arrears of rent cannot be said to be an order passed without jurisdiction for the simple reason that the Rent Controller had not become functus officio as the R.C.O.P was pending.
17. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the above said submissions made on both sides.
18. The eviction petition came to be filed in respect of a shop portion in a non-residential building in Gandhiji Road, Erode bearing Door No.93. Besides providing the door number, the petitioners in the eviction petition had also described the entire commercial building with reference to its four boundaries. The name of the building has also been furnished as Pattakarar building. The respondent had taken a plea in the counter statement filed by him that the door number of the petition premises was 90 and not 93 as furnished in the petition. However, he did not dispute the description of the property with reference to name of the building. In addition, accepting the contention of the respondent regarding door number, the same was amended based on an order dated 19.01.2012 made in I.A.No.116 of 2011 in the R.C.O.P. It is now an admitted fact that the respondent is a tenant in respect of the non-residential portion bearing Door No.90, Pattakarar Building, Gandhiji road, Erode and he is running an Electrical Shop. Hence, the same need not deter this Court from proceeding further with the consideration of the Civil Revision Petition on merits.
19. The order of the High Court relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent and referred to in the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller is one made by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Kamal Kanwar Bafna and another Vs. R.G.Trading Co., represented by its Proprietor R.G.Mohta, Chennai reported in (2002) 2 MLJ 514. The ratio decided therein, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, shall not be applicable to the case on hand. In the said order relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, the order passed by the Rent Controller directing payment / deposit of the arrears of the rent within the time fixed by the Rent Controller was stayed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Thereafter, on revision also, the Appellate Authority's order came to be confirmed. There is no indication in the said order whether the Appellate Authority, at the time of disposal of the appeal and the High Court, at the time of disposal of the revision, fixed any time for complying with the direction issued by the Rent Controller. From a reading of the said judgment, it can be inferred that time for complying with the condition had been fixed by the Rent Controller and it remained suspended during the pendency of the appeal by grant of stay by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and though no interim order came to be passed in the revision, while dismissing the revision, the High Court did not fix any time for complying with the condition requiring deposit of arrears of rent. The same was the reason for this Court in the other case to hold that the time stipulated in the order of the Rent Controller became meaningless as it stood suspended during the pendency of the appeal and this Court held that after the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition by the High Court, the Rent Controller was justified in passing an order extending the time for deposit as per the direction issued by the Rent Controller in the original order.
20. In this regard, reference can be made to the following judgments of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners:
1) N.S.M.Ahmad Jamalia Beevi Vs. D.N.Shah reported in 1997 (II) CTC 412;
2) Sankaran Pillai (dead) by Lrs. Vs. V.P.Venuguduswami and others, reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3060; and
3) Maragathammal Vs. Kamalammal reported in 2007-2-L.W.503.
21. In 1997 (II) CTC 412, cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after extracting sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, held that an order passed by the High Court in a revision arising from an order passed in an application filed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, directing the tenant to deposit the entire arrears of rent for a particular period on or before a particular date, had worked itself out due to non-compliance and that there was no impediment for the Rent Contorller to pass the consequential order of eviction under Section 11(4) of the Act. In the said case, the Rent Controller passed an order in July 1993 dismissing the application filed under Section 11(4) of the Act. On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowed the same on 12.09.1994 and directed the tenant to deposit the entire arrears of rent within one month failing which an order of eviction would be passed. Against the said order, the tenant filed a revision before the High Court and sought an interim stay. By order dated 27.09.1995, the High Court directed the tenant to deposit the entire arrears of rent from 01.09.1990 to 31.07.1992 within a period of six weeks from the date of the said order and it was also mentioned in the said order that on tenant's failure to deposit the rent, the stay granted would stand automatically vacated. The tenant therein committed default, whereupon the landlord approached the Rent Controller for passing an order of eviction. The Rent Controller passed such an order of eviction and the same was challenged before the High Court and the High Court granted further time to the tenant and gave him liberty to pay the arrears of rent within two weeks from the date of the said order, which was passed by the High Court on 09.07.1996. When the said order of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court chose to set aside the order of the High Court.
22. In Sankaran Pillai (dead) by Lrs. Vs. V.P.Venuguduswami and others reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3060, a plea similar to the one taken by the respondent herein was taken by the tenant in the said case that under misconception he failed to deposit the arrears of rent and the month-to-month rent and the same provided a sufficient cause to condone the non-deposit of arrears within the time granted by the Rent Controller in the conditional order. It was held that the very fact that the tenant went on denying the relationship of the landlord and tenant would show that his failure to comply with the order was not bonafide. Referring to the provisions found in Section 11 of the Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observations:
A Perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that where an application for eviction has been filed against a tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent the tenant is required (i) to deposit all the arrears of rent due in respect of the building with the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be; (ii) the tenant is further required to pay or deposit the rent which may subsequently fall due in respect of the building until the termination of the proceedings; (iii) the said deposit of rent is required to be paid or deposited within time provided and in the manner prescribed; and (iv) if the deposit of rent is not made, the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all proceedings and pass an order of eviction against the tenant. It is true that the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, if the tenant shows sufficient cause may permit the tenant to contest the application filed by the landlord for his eviction. The question that is required to be seen is, what does the expression sufficient cause means in sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act? It is no doubt true that the expression sufficient cause has to be liberally construed to do substantial injustice between the parties. But the expression sufficient cause necessarily implies an element of sincerity, bona fide, honesty and reasonableness. It has to be shown by the tenant who has not deposited the rent within time, as directed by the Controller, that non-deposit of the rent was beyond his control and there was no element of negligence or inaction or lack of bona fides on his part in not depositing the rent within time. Viewed in this light, what we find in the present case is, that the tenant was required to deposit the rent by 3.8.1990. But the arrears of rent were not deposited by that date. On 7.8.1990, when the order of eviction was passed, no application was moved by the tenant before the Rent Controller for revoking the order striking out defence as he could not deposit the arrears of rent on account of reasons beyond his control. On the contrary, the tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant before the Rent Controller. The tenants subsequent deposit of the arrears of rent before the appellate authority being requirement of law for hearing the appeal on merits, cannot be treated as bona fide deposit. Further, the tenant did not deposit the month to month rent as required under section 11(1) of the Act and reiterated his stand that he is a landlord and not a tenant of the premises in dispute. Even before the High Court it was not the case of the tenant that under some bona fide mistake he could not deposit the arrears and month to month rent and, therefore, delay may be condoned. It appears that, after the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit filed by the tenant for specific performance of the Agreement, the tenant has now come forward with a plea that since he under mistaken belief did not deposit arrears and month to month rent and, therefore, default may be condoned. As noticed earlier, this plea of non-depositing of arrears of rent on account of sufficient cause was not a case set up by the tenant before the Rent Controller, the appellate authority and the High Court. The tenants consistent stand was that he was not required under law to deposit any arrears of rent and month to month rent as he himself was the landlord of the premises. This plea of the tenant now advanced is an afterthought and is not bona fide and, therefore, we do not find it to constitute sufficient cause as to condone the non-deposit of arrears and also month to month rent which was required to be deposited by the tenant. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants.
23. When an order directing deposit of arrears of rent came to be passed by the Rent Controller, then the non-deposit of the amount as directed in that order within the time stipulated in that order shall lead to the striking off of the defence and passing of an order of eviction summarily, unless the tenant is able to show that he had sufficient cause for not complying with the condition. When sufficient cause is sought to be shown to avoid consequential order of eviction being passed, landlord shall be entitled to notice and shall be entitled to be heard. Unless the landlord is given notice and given an opportunity of being heard, he shall not be in a position to show that the contention of the tenant that he was prevented by a reasonable cause from making the deposit in time was not bonafide.
24. In the case on hand, no doubt the order passed by the Rent Controller was not final and the Appellate Authority passed an order directing deposit of the arrears as per the admitted rate of rent within a time fixed in the order of the Appellate Authority. The order of the Appellate Authority came to be passed on 12.07.2012. It directed the respondent herein to deposit the arrears of rent from the date of filing of the 11(4) petition till the date of order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month within one month from the date of the said order of the Appellate Authority. The deposit should have been made on or before 12.08.2011. But it was not done by the respondent herein/tenant. As against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, no revision seems to have been filed. The revision petitioners, before the expiry of the time granted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, filed a memo on 27.07.2012 itself informing the learned Rent Controller that the appeal filed by the respondent herein in R.C.A.No.13 of 2012 was dismissed on 12.07.2012 granting one month time from the date of the said order to deposit the arrears of rent and directing the respondent to deposit the future monthly rent on or before the 10th day of succeeding month. It cannot be said that the respondent herein/tenant was not aware of the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Even otherwise, much before the expiry of the said time, the revision petitioners herein chose to file the said memo. In addition, after the expiry of the time granted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the petitioners filed a further memo giving notice to the respondent's counsel on 21.08.2012 stating that the respondent had not deposited any amount as per the direction and praying that the defence be struck off and eviction of the respondent herein be directed. A further memo came to be filed on 31.08.2012 stating that the Rent Controller cannot extend the time granted by the Appellate Authority. Even after the filing of the said memo, the respondent herein did not deposit the amount and from the objections filed by the respondent herein it is obvious that the lodgment schedule itself was filed by the respondent only on 10.09.2012. Though the respondent might have stated in his objection that since he did not know from which date the time stipulated in the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority was to be counted for complying with the condition, the said reason assigned by him seems to be one invented for the purpose of explaining the belated payment.
25. It is quite obvious from the copies of the memo that even after the filing of the memo dated 27.07.2012 and a subsequent memo dated 21.08.2012, the respondent had not chosen to come forward to deposit the amount and only after the memo dated 31.08.2012 came to be filed and he was called upon to submit his objections, he chose to file a lodgment schedule on 10.09.2012. The same would show lack of bonafide on the part of the respondent, who is admittedly a tenant in respect of the petition premises. However, he chose to deny the title of the revision petitioners. Of course it is true that there was a suit filed by Arjun Manradiyar against his own son Mahendra Manradiyar in O.S.No.55 of 2010 for bare injunction, when Mahendra Manradiyar claimed title to the property by virtue of a registered settlement deed executed by Arjun Manradiyar, the original owner. In the said suit, his son Mahendra Manradiyar filed a petition in I.A.No.239 of 2010 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for the rejection of the plaint. Though the said petition was dismissed by the Trial Court, the order of dismissal of the said petition was challenged before the High Court in C.R.P.No.59 of 2011. After hearing, the revision petition was allowed and the plaint was rejected. A copy of the said order has been produced as Ex.P7. As against the order of the High Court passed in C.R.P.No.59 of 2011, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10608 of 2011 came to be preferred by Arjun Manradiyar before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a copy of the said order has been produced as Ex.P8. From Exs.P7 and P8, it is quite obvious that the plaint in the suit filed by Arjun Manradiyar came to be rejected. Thereafter, there was no scope for the respondent herein to contend that the original landlord Arjun Manradiyar continued to be his landlord as his son Mahendra Manradiyar had got the property by virtue of a settlement deed and from the Mahendra Manradiyar. The petitioners, represented by their Power of Attorney, had purchased the property under a sale deed dated 14.02.2010, certified copy of which has been produced as Ex.P1. The purchase under the said sale deed was intimated and the respondent herein was directed to make payment of the rent to the petitioners. But the respondent simply evaded payment by stating that there was no privity of contract between himself and the petitioners and that he continued to be a tenant under Arjun Manradiyar. Under the said circumstances alone, the eviction petition came to be filed and pending disposal of the eviction petition, I.A.No.58 of 2011 came to be filed. Besides disputing the quantum of rent (petitioners claimed it to be Rs.4,000/- per month whereas the respondent claimed it to be Rs.2,000/- per month), the respondent herein failed to make payment or to deposit at least the admitted rent from the date of receipt of notice or from the date of filing of the R.C.O.P.
26. It is an admitted fact that the respondent did not file any petition under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for depositing the rent. Even after the passing of an order in I.A.No.58 of 2011 summarily deciding the amount due and directing deposit of the arrears as per the admitted quantum of monthly rent, the respondent did not make payment and on the other hand, he was bent upon protracting the case as long as possible. Therefore, this Court accepts the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Rent Controller did not follow the due procedure for deciding whether the respondent/tenant was having sufficient cause for not making the deposit of the rent as per the order of the Rent Controller, which came to be confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Rent Controller is proved to have wrongly exercised the jurisdiction to condone the delay in depositing the arrears of rent as directed by the Rent Controller in I.A.No.58 of 2011, which came to be confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and that hence on the ground of wrong exercise of jurisdiction, the order of the Rent Controller is liable to be interfered with by this Court in its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
27. Moreover, the question whether the Rent Controller can extend the time for depositing the arrears of rent granted by the Appellate Authority or revision Court has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Maragathammal Vs. Kamalammal reported in 2007-2-L.W.503. In the said caes an order under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was passed by the Rent Controller on 19.11.2005 directing the respondent herein/tenant to deposit the entire admitted arrears of rent in Court on or before 22.11.1995, failing compliance of which the tenant's defence would be struck off. The tenant therein stated to have filed a lodgment schedule on 21.11.1995 stating that he wanted to deposit the rent from the month of July 1992 onwards upto to October 1995 (covering 41 months). Lodgment schedule came to be considered and a challan was issued on 29.11.1995 for depositing the amount. The Rent Controller passed an order on 01.12.1995 holding that the tenant failed to deposit the admitted arrears in spite of ample opportunities, struck off the defence and passed an order of eviction in the R.C.O.P on 22.03.1996. As against the said order passed in 11(4) petition and the order of eviction passed in R.C.O.P, appeals were filed by the tenant in R.C.A.No.63 of 1997 and 66 of 1998. As the appeal against the eviction order was beyond the period of limitation, an interlocutory application to condone the said delay was filed. In the said application to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the Appellate Authority directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent from June 1992 to July 1997 on or before 16.07.1997. Such an order came to be passed on 08.07.1997. Accordingly, the amount was also deposited on 14.07.1997. Thereafter, the appeals came to be numbered and they were disposed of by a common order dated 04.07.2000 holding that the tenant was not showing due diligence to discharge her liability in payment of rent and the arrears of rent was not deposited within time. In a revision against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, the Supreme Court reversed the said judgment of the Appellate Authority, set aside the order of eviction passed under Section 11(4) of the Act, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. In the said case, it was pointed out that the tenant waited till the eve of the last day for the deposit of the amount and on a day before the last day of the time granted by the Court for deposit, filed a lodgment schedule expressing her intention to deposit the rent for the month of June 1992 onwards upto October 1995. As she had waited till the eve of the last day for filing the lodgment schedule, the Supreme Court held that there was no bonafide on the part of the tenant therein; that therefore, the orders striking off the defence and directing eviction of the tenant for non-compliance with the conditional order was justifiable and that the interference by the High Court in the said case was unwarranted. Accordingly, the Supreme Court in the said case set aside the order of the High Court and restored the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. However, the Supreme Court granted two months time to the tenant to vacate the premises.
28. If the ratio decided in the above cases decided by the Superme Court is applied to the facts of the case on hand, there cannot be any hesitation for this Court to come to the conclusion that the learned Rent Controller has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction to condone the delay in depositing the arrears of rent as per the conditional order passed. Moreover, when the direction issued by the Rent Controller for deposit of the amount was not complied with on or before the date fixed by the Rent Controller and on the other hand, the tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority, while dismissing the appeal granted further time to deposit the arrears of rent, the Rent Controller ought to have considered meticulously, the plea, if any, made by the tenant that he was having sufficient cause for not making the deposit as directed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and an opportunity should have been given to the landlords to show that the tenant was not bonafide in not depositing the rent. As it was not done by the learned Rent Controller and on the other hand, almost a non-speaking order came to be passed by simply granting extension of time and accepting the lodgment schedule, the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller shall not with stand the scrutiny of this Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Article 227 of the Constitution of India is intended for having constant supervision over the Courts and Tribunals sub-ordinate to the High Court, to confine them within their jurisdiction and to ensure that they do not exceed the jurisdiction conferred on them or fail to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on them or erroneously exercise such jurisdiction. As the order of the learned Rent Controller is perverse, besides the same being passed without following the established cannons of the principles of law, the order holding the respondent / tenant was having sufficient cause for not depositing the arrears of rent in accordance with the conditional order within the time stipulated therein, is an illegal order which is liable to be set aside. Such an order, as pointed out supra, came to be passed when the fact of non-compliance with the direction made in the conditional order was brought to the notice of the Rent Controller. The learned Rent Controller did not pass the consequential order. On the other hand, the Rent Controller simply kept the memos pending and postponed the passing of the order till compliance could be made by depositing the arrears of rent. The said procedure adopted by the learned Rent Controller is totally against the established principles of law and in a way, it can be viewed as a biased order encouraging abuse of process of Court.
For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the revision shall succeed with the result that the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller dated 05.10.2012 shall be set aside and the revision petitioners shall be entitled to an order under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 directing eviction of the respondent from the petition premises. The respondent shall have two months time from today to vacate and handover possession. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
30.10.2014 Index: Yes Internet: Yes gpa To The Rent Controller District Munsif, Erode.
P.R.SHIVAKUMAR.J., gpa Judgment in C.R.P (NPD) No.3361 of 2013 30.10.2014