Provisions of Section 11 runs counter to the object of the Act.

This is a petition to declare that Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), is unconstitutional, being repugnant to the very object of the Act.

2. The petitioner is admittedly a tenant under the second respondent of premises No.8, Thulukanam Street, Varadarajapuram, Madras-2. On a rent of Rs.50 per mensem. The second respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.64 of 1983 under Sec.l0(2)(i) of the Act for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. An application was filed by the second respondent under Sec.11 of the Act for a direction to the petitioner to pay the arrears of rent and in default to stop the proceedings. An order was passed by the Rent Controller directing the tenant to pay the rent and as he did not comply with the same, an order was passed under Sec.11 (4) of the Act on 4. 1985 directing him to put the second respondent in possession of the building. The second respondent filed E.P.No.177 of 1988 for executing the order. The petitioner contested the same and filed M.P.No.852 of 1988 under Sec.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dismissal of the execution proceeding. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner was that the premises fell within an area declared to be slum area by the Government in G.O.No.1528, dated 12. 1971, under the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance and Improvement Act, 1971. The tenant paid a sum of Rs.2,000 towards arrears on 1. 1989 and another sum of Rs.2,350 on 3. 1989. The second respondent did not press the E.P. and it was dismissed on 3. 1989. A fresh E.P. was filed in E.P.No.312 of 1991. In the meanwhile, a writ petition was filed challenging the validity of the Notification under the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance and Improvement Act in this Court and the same was allowed. The Notification was held to be null and goid. Again, the petitioner filed M.P.No.577 of 1991 under Sec.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure raising the same contentions. That petition was dismissed on 1. 1992. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order. The petitioner also filed M.P.No.138 of 1992 under Sec.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That was dismissed on 24. 1992. The petitioner filed R.C.A.No.572 of 1992 against the said order. That appeal was dismissed on 28. 1992.

3. The petitioner filed this writ petition on 20.8.1992 and got an interim stay of eviction. In this proceeding the petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of Sec.11(4) of the Act in order to contend that the order of eviction passed against him is consequentially null and void. The grounds urged by the petitioner in support of his petitioner. Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of declaration declaring that Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act is unconstitutional being repugnant to the very object of the Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960, as amended uptodate and pass all consequential orders that are necessary in the subject matter.

(1) The section is against the object of the Act, which is a beneficial enactment intended to protect the tenants. Hence, the provision for eviction on failure to pay or deposit the arrears of rent, even before the disposal of the main petition for eviction runs counter to the object of the Act.

.(2) The section is ambiguous. The meaning of the expression "arrears of rent" is not made clear as to whether it would refer to the arrears accrued prior to the filing of the petition or arrears accured after the filing of the petition and during the pendency of the main proceeding.

.(3) There are no guidelines prescribed by the section on the basis of which the court should act. A view has been taken in some cases that even time barred arrears can be directed to be paid or deposited under the section. That will place an unreasonable burden on th