The Rent Control Appellate Authority has the power to impose a condition for the deposit of entire arrears as a condition for grant of stay, as interpreted from Section 23(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: C.R.P.No.4297 of 2017: Civil Revision Petition is filed underSection 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, against the fair and decretal order dated 07.10.2017 in M.P.No.231 of 2017 in R.C.A.No.400 of 2017 on the file of the learned IX Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

C.R.P.Nos.4298 to 4300 of 2017: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, against the fair and decretal order dated 07.10.2017 in M.P.Nos.321 to 323 of 2017 in M.P.No.231 of 2017 in R.C.A.No.400 of 2017 on the file of the learned IX Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. I have carefully gone through the records.

2. The civil revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. R.C.O.P.No.1625 of 2015 is a petition filed by the landlord under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). In the said proceeding, M.P.No.142 of 2016 was filed by the landlord under Section 11(3) of the Act stating that the tenant had not paid the rent from March 2015 to December 2016. The tenant was directed to pay the monthly rentals being Rs.75,000/- and arrears being Rs.9,00,000/-.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.400 of 2017 on the file of the learned XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. The said R.C.A. is still pending. In the mean time, since the interim order passed in M.P.No.142 of 2016 was not complied with, eviction was ordered on 06.02.2017. Pending the R.C.A., an application was moved by the petitioner in M.P.No.231 of 2017. This application is for stay of an order of eviction, passed in R.C.O.P.No.1625 of 2015, pending disposal of the appeal. In the said petition, the following order was passed.

“Heard the counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submit that the learned Rent Controller has not adverted to the facts of the case and has ordered eviction. It is further submitted that the petitioner has paid the rent without any arrears. According to the orders of the Rent Controller, the petitioner/appellant is liable to pay the arrears from March 2015 to December 2016 at the rate of Rs.75,000/-. On the other hand, the R.C.O.P. being filed for the covering period from March 2015 to February 2016 amounting to Rs.9,00,000/-. Though, there was a dispute with relates to jural relationship, it would be decided in later point of time i.e., To pass the final order of RCA. In the instant Appeal on hand, the appellant stating that he is ready and willing to comply with any condition could be imposed. However, the petitioner admitted to deposit the sum of part amount without prejudice to his case. It is further submitted the petitioner has every chance of success in the appeal. If an order of interim stay is not granted the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss. In the above said circumstances, this Court inclined to grant interim stay till 3.8.2017 on condition that the petitioner has to deposit a sum of Rs.9 lakhs to the credit of this RCA.399/2017 & 400/2017 on or before 3.8.2017, call on 03.08.2017. Notice to respondent by then. If the appellant is to be failed to comply with the order, the stay will be automatically ousted. ”

4. It is pertinent to point out that the tenant filed M.P.No.321 of 2017 seeking for extension of time for a condition that has been imposed by the Court on 01.06.2017. Apart from that, M.P.No.322 of 2017 was filed by the tenant to permit him to deposit Rs.2,00,000/- to the credit of RCA. He also filed an application in M.P.No.323 of 2017 seeking for extension of stay granted in M.P.No.231 of 2017 from 03.08.2017 to 19.09.2017.

5. After issuing notice to the landlord, the Rent Control Appellate Authority found no merits in the applications and therefore, dismissed the same