SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Mad) 648

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THANIKKACHALAM
Pichai Chetty & Other
Versus
N.K. Muthukrishnan
C.R.P. No. 1604 of 1988
Decided On :Decided on : 07-09-1991

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:M.V. Venkataseshan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:A. Subramania Iyer, V. Avudainayagam, Advocates.

Deposit of arrears of rent is a condition precedent for filing an appeal against an order of eviction under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960.

Headnote:

EVICTION - RENT CONTROL - ARREARS OF RENT - DEPOSIT - CONDITION PRECEDENT - APPEAL - S. 11(1) OF THE TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE & RENT CONTROL) ACT, 18 OF 1960 - DEPOSIT OF ARREARS OF RENT IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR FILING AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF EVICTION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, legal representatives of the deceased tenant, occupied the ground floor of the petition premises at No. 5, 1st Cross Street, New Colony, Saidapet, Madras-15, on a monthly rent of Rs. 300. The respondent purchased the premises under a registered sale deed on 18.8.1986 and sent a notice to the petitioners on 2.10.1986 to quit and deliver vacant possession. The petitioners denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, claiming to be tenants under one Rajeswariammal, and filed a suit questioning the respondent's title. The Rent Controller directed the petitioners to deposit arrears of rent under S. 11(4) of the Act, but they failed to comply. The Rent Controller terminated the proceedings and ordered eviction, which was upheld by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners were in occupation of the premises as tenants of the respondent and had committed wilful default in payment of rent. The court also held that the petitioners' appeal against the eviction order was not maintainable as they had failed to deposit the arrears of rent as directed under S. 11(4) of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were tenants of the respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners had committed wilful default in payment of rent? 3. Whether the petitioners' appeal against the eviction order was maintainable?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners were tenants of the respondent based on the following factors: - The petitioners were in occupation of the premises. - The respondent had purchased the premises under a registered sale deed. - The petitioners had failed to pay rent to the respondent after the purchase. - The petitioners had not provided any evidence of paying rent to Rajeswariammal. 2. The court held that the petitioners had committed wilful default in payment of rent based on the following factors: - The petitioners had failed to pay rent to the respondent after the purchase. - The petitioners had failed to comply with the Rent Controller's order to deposit arrears of rent. 3. The court held that the petitioners' appeal against the eviction order was not maintainable because they had failed to deposit the arrears of rent as directed under S. 11(4) of the Act.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition with costs and granted two months' time for eviction.

Judgment :-

The legal representatives of the deceased tenant are the petitioners herein. The petitioner premises is situate at No. 5, 1st Cross Street, New Colony, Saidapet, Madras-15. The respondent herein purchased the premises under a registered sale deed dt. 18.8.1986 from M.C. Gopal. The petitioners herein are in occupation of the ground oor of the said premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/. The respondent herein is in occupation of the first floor. The petition for eviction was filed under Ss. 10(2) (i) and 10(3) (c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the landlord, the tenant failed and neglected to pay the rent from 1.7.1986 till 31.10.86 and also committed act of waste, materially impairing the value and utility of the building. Further according to the landlord, he required the portion under the occupation of the tenants by way of additional accommodation. Therefore, the landlord sent a notice tothe tenant on 2.10.1986 callingupon them to quit and deliver vacant possession of the petition premises. But there was no reply to the notice sent by the landlord.

2. According to the tenants there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent herein. The tenants are not recognising the respondent herein as the landlord. The petitioners herein are tenants in respect of the petition premises under one Rajeswariammal, to whom the petitioners were paying the rent regularly from the inception of tenancy in 1972 onwards. There is a suit O.S. No. 2742 of 1987 pending on the file of City Civil Court, Madras questioning the title of the respondent herein for the petition premises. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the respondent herein to say that the petitioners herein committed wilful default in payment of rent. During the pendency of the H.R.CO.P. No. 3702 of 1986, the respondent herein filed a petition under S.ll(4) of the Act in M.P. No. 1063 of 1987 for collecting the arrears of rent. The petitioners herein filed a counter stating that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant [between the respondent and the petitioners and therefore the respondent herein cannot ask the petitioners herein to pay the rent. However, the Rent Controller after hearing both the parties directed the petitioners herein to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,200/- towards arrears of rent on or before 22.10.1987, but the petitioners herein did not comply with that order. Therefore, the Rent Controller, terminated the proceedings and ordered eviction on 23.10.1987. The petitioners herein did not file any appeal against the order passed in M.P. No. 1063 of 1987. But the petitioners herein filed an appeal R.C.A. No. 840 of 1987 against the order of eviction passed in the main R.C.O.P. No. 3702 of 1986. The Rent Control Appellate Authority entertained the appeal and ultimately came to the conclusion that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent herein. Accordingly, the appellate authority confirmed the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. As against the order, the present revision has been preferred by the tenants before this court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein submitted as under;

The order passed in M.P. No. 1063 of 1987 has got merged with the order passed in the main RCOP. No. 3702 of 1986 dated 23.10.1987 and therefore a separate appeal against the order passed in the petition under S. 11(4) of the Act is not necessary. The learned counsel submitted that the appeal against the order passed in RCOP. No. 3702 of 1986 would comprehensively cover the question arising under S. 11(4) of the Act also. According to the tenants, a bona fide dispute is in existence with regard to the title over the petition premises between the respondent herein and one Rajeswariammal. A suit O.S. No. 2742 of 1987 is also pending in the City Civil Court, Madras in this res

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top