Depositing rent in tenants name is bank not proper.

1. Tenant who failed before the Authorities below is challenging the concurrent findings against her. She has been directed to be evicted by Rent Controller on the ground that she has committed wilful default in paying rent. Though she preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the same was also not fruitful. Hence, the revision under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

2. Since the respondent has entered appearance by filing caveat, I heard him also at the time when the Revision came up for admission.

3. Respondents mother filed R.C.O.P.No.1911 of 1994, on the file of XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, for eviction of the petitioner herein, on the ground that she has committed default in paying rent from November, 1991. Pending eviction proceedings she died, and the case is further prosecuted by her son, respondent herein.

4. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner herein was a tenant in respect of a shop bearing Door No.217, Periyar Road, Choolaimedu,Madras-600094 for non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.200 excluding electricity charges. Thereafter, she took another residential portion in the very same premises on a monthly rent of Rs.350 excluding electricity charges. The tenancy is in accordance with English calendar month.

5. Tenant, petitioner herein, disputes the quantum of rent payable and also the nature of tenancy. According to her, two portions of the same premises had been let out as a single unit for nonresidential purposes on a monthly rent of Rs.350. According to her, the monthly rent is not Rs.550 as alleged by respondent herein.

6. Respondents mother originally filed R.C.O.P.No.561 of 1990, on the file of Small Causes Court, Madras, against the petitioner herein on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. Simultaneously, petitioner herein also filed R.C.O.P.No.681 of 1990, on the file of the same court under Sec.8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, alleging that the landlady refused to receive the rent and that therefore she may be allowed to deposit the rent in court.

7. Both the petitions were tried jointly, R.C.O.P.No.681 of 1990 filed by tenant was allowed, and R.C.O.P.No.561 of 1990 filed by landlady was dismissed. It is said that during the pendency of the petitions, petitioner was directed to pay the rent, and the same was being received by respondent/landlady without prejudice to her claim. In view of the courts direction, she paid a sum of Rs.8,200, and details of such payments are made in the eviction petition, and rent for the period from November, 1991 is in arrears. It is alleged by the landlady that even though R.C.O.P.No.681 of 1990 was allowed directing the petitioner he rein to deposit the rent under Sec.8(5) of the Act, she did not pay the same, and even the admitted rent is in default. It is alleged that the approach of the petitioner herein is only to rent and creating an atmosphere that there is a dispute regarding the quantum of rent. In spite of the fact that the Rent Control court has decided the quantum of rent payable, without any just cause, the payment of rent is being withheld, and till the date of eviction petition, no rent was paid. On 24.7.1994, a registered notice was issued to the petitioner herein to vacate the premises and also informing her about the rental arrears from November, 1991. For the said notice, petitioner herein sent a reply dated 2.8.1994 informing the landlady that a sum of Rs.11,550 is being deposited. According to the landlady, the tenant is showing supine indifference and she is also callous in paying the rent and, therefore, she is liable to be evicted.

8. A counter was filed by the tenant, petitioner herein. According to her, the eviction petition itself is not maintainable, and the attempt of the landlady is only to harass her. The previous conduct of the landlady in initiating proceedings for eviction, and her failure to get possession of the