Strict compliance with the prescribed procedures under Section 8 of the Tamilnadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act 18/1960 is necessary for a tenant to deposit rents into Court.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamilnadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act 18/1960, as amended by Act 23/1973 and Act.1/1980 against the fair and decretal order passed in R.C.A. No.8 of 2019, dated 19.10.2019, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Judge), Erode, reversing the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 2018 dated 15.03.2019, on the file of Rent Controller, (Principal District Munsif), Erode.)

1. This revision petition is filed against the orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. No.8 of 2019, dated 19.10.2019, reversing the orders of the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 2018 dated 15.03.2019.

2. The revision petitioners are the landlords, while the respondent is the tenant. The respondent was inducted as a tenant on 01.10.1991 in the demised premises bearing Door No.23, Old No.16, Asma Covering, R.K.V. Road, Erode, on a monthly rent of Rs.1,300/-. The premises was let out for non residential purpose and the tenancy was oral. A sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid towards advance.

3. The tenant filed a petition in R.C.O.P No.11 of 2018 before the Rent Controller, (Principal District Munsif), Erode, under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called as the "Act") for depositing the rents into Court on the ground that the landlords are refusing to receive rents for the tenanted premises from the month of June 2018.

4. The landlords filed a counter denying all the allegations of the petitioner / tenant and after full contest the learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition filed by the tenant under Section 8(5) of the Act on the ground that the petitioner, without following the procedures laid down under Section 8 of the Act, step by step, has straight away filed a petition under Section 8(5) of the Act.

5. Aggrieved over the same, the tenant filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.8 of 2019 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Judge), Erode. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides, set aside the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 15.03.2019 by observing thus:

"14. In particular in the dictum laid by the Hon'ble High court it is mentioned that the following of procedure contemplated under Section 8 is only an enabling provision and not mandatory one. When coming to the present case in hand the petitioner has not resorted to file the petition under Section 8(5) of rent control act directly without following the procedure contemplated under Section 8(2) and 8(4) of rent control act. But instead of seeking for bank account particulars the petitioner has sent the rent through the money order and immediately after refusal they have also sought for the bank account particulars. But the bank account particulars is deliberately not given by the landlord which is admitted by them in the counter itself. Hence this Court considers that the above act of the petitioner could not be no longer held as a wilful default. Further this Court do not find fault with the steps followed by the petitioner prior to filing this petition seeking to deposit the rent. Hence this Court is of the considered stands that the order of the rent controller is liable to be set aside."

6. Now the present revision petition is filed against the orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

7. Though the notice was served on the respondent and his name is printed in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

8. Mr.V.S. Kesavan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended that though the tenant did not follow the procedures prescribed under Section 8 of the Act, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Erode, allowed R.C.A.No.8/2019 on the ground that the procedure contemplated under Section 8 of the Act is only an enabling provision and not a manda