IMPORTANT POINT
The provisions of Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act are mandatory, and non-compliance with the procedural requirements, particularly the notice under Section 8(2), precludes a tenant from depositing rent under Section 8(5).

ORDER :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu (Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 14.09.2021 made in RCA.No.55 of 2019 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority/ Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore reversal of the fair and decreetal order dated 07.12.2018 made in RCOP.No.125 of 2013 on the file of the learned Rent Controller / learned Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore by allowing this Civil Revision Petition.

The landlord is on revision challenging the order of the Appellate Authority made in an appeal filed under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for brevity “the Act”) allowing the same and permitting the tenant to deposit the monthly rents to the credit of the RCOP.No.125 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Controller/ Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore.

2. The respondent tenant invoked the jurisdiction of the rent controller under Section 8(5) of the Act seeking an order for deposit of the monthly rents contending that the landlord had refused to receive the same.

3. The said petition was resisted by the landlord contending that there was a default in payment of rent and the landlord had already initiated proceedings for eviction and the present petition under Section 8(5) is only an attempt by the tenant to cover the default. It was also contended that the tenant had not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the Act to enable the tenant to invoke sub-Section 5 of Section 8.

4. The learned Rent Controller concluded that the tenant had not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the Act. The preconditions required to be satisfied by the tenant in order to enable the tenant to seek an order for deposit were not complied with. Therefore, the tenant is not entitled to an order for deposit. On the above conclusion, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the Original Petition. Aggrieved the tenant preferred an appeal in RCA.No.55 of 2019.

5. The learned Appellate Authority did not disturb the findings of the Rent Controller regarding non-compliance with the provisions of the Section 8 of the Act. The Appellate Authority however concluded that the fact that the landlord had chosen to withdraw the rents that were deposited by the tenant pending proceedings before the Rent Controller would absolve the tenant from complying with the requirement of Section 8(2) of the Act. On the said conclusion, the learned Appellant Authority allowed the appeal as stated supra. The landlord is on revision under Section 25 of the Act.

6. I have heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.S.V.Pravin Rathinam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that in order to enable the tenant to have the benefit of deposit under Sub-Section 5 of Section 8 of the Act, the tenant has to demonstrate that he or she had strictly complied with the requirements of Section 8. If there is a failure on the part of the tenant to comply with any one of the requirements under Section 8, an application under Section 8(5) cannot be entertained.

8. Drawing my attention to the fact that the tenant had not chosen to issue notice as required under Section 8(2) of the Act before attempting to send the rent by money order, Mr.N.Manoharan would contend that since there is a failure on the part of the tenant to comply with the provisions of Section 8(2) of the Act, the Appellate Authority ought not to have allowed the application merely because the landlord has withdrawn the rents that were deposited during the pendency of the RCOP.

9. Contending contra Mr.S.V.Pravin Rathinam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ tenant would submit that sub-Section 2 of Section 8 uses the word 'may' and therefore it is not obligatory on the