Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. JAGADEESAN & E. PADMANABHAN
A. Rafeeq Ahmed & Co. rep. by its partner K. Muktar Ahamed
Versus
Montari Leather Ltd., rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director
C.R.P. No. 728 of 2001
Decided On :Decided on: 30-10-2001
Whether deposit of arrears of rent is a condition precedent to prefer an appeal against an order passed under Sections 11(3) and (4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act or when a direction is issued under Section 11(4) to deposit arrears and the said order is challenged before the appellate forum?
Fact of the Case:
None
Finding of the Court:
Deposit of arrears of rent is not a condition precedent to prefer an appeal against an order passed under Sections 11(3) and (4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act or when a direction is issued under Section 11(4) to deposit arrears and the said order is challenged before the appellate forum.
Issues: None
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statutory provision namely Section 11 (3) and (4) read with S. 23 should be given a plain meaning in juxtaposition to Section 11(1) read with Section 23. On a plain reading, the court was not able to persuade itself to accept the plea that arrears of rent as adjudicated by the Rent Controller under section 11 (3) and (4) should be deposited as a condition precedent. Such a condition precedent is not provided for, nor it could be read into it. If such a condition precedent is to be construed it should have been provided specifically in section 11(3) or (4) or in section 23 or by a Rule. This is not so. The right of appeal has been recognised by the judicial decisions as a right which vests in a suit or at the time of institution of the original proceeding itself.
Final Decision: None
E. PADMANABHAN, J.
1. This revision has been preferred against the fair and decretal order of the learned Rent ControL Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge) of Vellore made in I.A. No. 27 of 2001 in RCA No: 13 of 2000
2. The petitioner herein is the landlord of the suit tenancy premises while the respondent is the tenant of the said premises.
3. The revision petitioner filed RCOP No. 57 of 1998 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif) at Vellore under section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 seeking for eviction on the ground that the respondent-tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent since September, 1996. After issue of the requisite notice, the eviction petition was instituted. The respondent mainly pleaded that it is a “sick company” under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 that it had moved the Board of Industrial Finance Reconstruction by filing an application to declare it as a sick company in Case No. 27’ of 1998 and in terms of Section 2 of the said BIFR Act, 1985 no proceedings could be instituted against the respondent including a petition for eviction till the BIFR is seized of the application, besides contending that an application without prior permission from the BIFR is not maintainable. The respondent pleaded that a por tion of the rent has been paid. With respect to the quantum of arrears practically there is no dispute between the parties.
4. The petitioner-landlord filed an application in I.A. No. 27 of 2000 under Section 11(3) and 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 before the Rent Controller praying to conduct an enquiry under section 11 (3) of the Act and pass consequential orders as provided under section 11(4) of the Act.
5. The petitioner-landlord stated that after giving credit to the sum of Rs. 1,90,037.60 a sum of Rs. 1,01,861.09 is due and payable towards arrears of rent for the period up to January 1999. The respondent-tenant resisted the said application contending that such an application is not maintainable and that Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act is a bar to the eviction petition and that the application filed under Sec. 11(3) and (4) is not maintainable.
6. Pending the said application filed by the petitioner-landlord the respondent-tenant took out an application to stay all further proceedings in I.A.No:27 of 1999, which application was dismissed by the Rent Controller. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred CRP No. 2955 of 1999 on the file of this Court. P. Shanmugham, J., while following the decision of the Supreme Court in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Lts. v. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras reported in 1992 (3) SCC 1 = 1992 2 L.W. 10, held that no interference is called for with respect to the order passed by the Rent Controller as an application under Section 11(3) and 11(4) is maintainable. In that view learned Judge by order dated 27.10.1999 dismissed the CRP. No. 2955 of 1999.
7. Thereafter in I.A. No. 27 of 1999 in RCOP No. 57 of 1998 the Rent Controller passed orders on 27th of March 2000 under Section 11 (4) holding that the respondent tenant had failed to remit the arrears of rent aggregating Rs. 1,28,77,861.19 and directed the respondent-tenant to deposit the said amount on or before 27.6.2000 and failing compliance, the proceedings will be stayed and that there will be a direction to evict the respondent - tenant in terms of Sub Section (4) of Sec. 11
8. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 27.3.2000, in I.A. No. 27 of 1999, the respondent-tenant preferred RCA No. 13 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority of Vellore. Pending the appeal the respondent as tenant has also taken out I.A. No. 27 of 2000 in RCA, 13 of 2000 to stay the fair and decretal order dated 27.3.2000 made in I.A. No. 27 of 1999, in RCOP. No. 57 of 1998. The said application was taken out under Section 23
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
