R.C.O.P.filed by landlords against tenant for eviction allowed.

C.R.P. No.308 of 1997 arises from R.C.O.P. No. 193 of 1990 and C.R.P. No.309 of 1997 arises from R.C.O.P. No.200 of 1990. Both these proceedings were clubbed together by the Rent Controller and a common order was pronounced. When appeals were preferred, the appellate authority also disposed of the appeals by a common judgment.

2. In both the revisions, tenant is the revision petitioner.

3. R.C.O.P. No.193 of 1990 was filed by the tenant under Sec.8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. seeking permission from Rent Controller for depositing the rent of Rs.8,180 due to the respondent for the period ending with 37. 1990 and permit him to continue to deposit future rents.

.4. Material averments in that petition may be stated as follows:

.There are three respondents. All of them are landlords of the building. They arc sons of one late Narahari Rao. Under a lease arrangement dated 211. 1974. petitioner herein took the building on a monthly rent of Rs.750. It is averred that an advance amount of Rs.5,000 was paid. Thereafter the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,800. The arrangement in respect of such enhancement was oral, and the tenancy was according to English calendar month. From the very beginning, the tenant is running ‘Alankar Ribbon Stall’ in the schedule premises. Initially the first respondent was collecting the rent, and subsequently, he directed the rent to be paid to the three respondents in proportion of Rs.600. It is further averred that it was the habit of landlords to take loan from the tenant, and huge amount is due to him from the landlords. Upto 23. 1990 the first respondent has received the rent; second respondent has received the rent upto 33. 1990; and third respondent has received the rent upto 31. 1990. Thereafter, the allegation in the petition is that without any reason the landlords refused to receive the rent. Therefore, the tenant began to send the rent in equal shares to all the three respondents either by demand draft or by-cheque.

.5. It is further averred that for the tenancy month of February, 1990, a demand draft was sent to the respondents towards their share after deducting the loan amount which they had borrowed. Before issuing the demand drafts towards rent, the petitioner sent a lawyer’s notice to all the respondents. It is seen that all the cheques and demand drafts sent by the petitioner were refused to be accepted. In paragraph 4 of the petition, petitioner has calculated the rent due to each and every respondent from 1st January, 1990 till 37. 1990. An amount of Rs.4,200 is due of Rs.2,400 is due the respondent No.2 by way of four months rent from 4. 1990 to 37. 1990. A sum of Rs. 1,580 is due to the third respondent for the tenancy month of February, 1990 and March. 1990 and for the period commencing from 7. 1990 to 37. 1990. According to the tenant, the total amount payable to the landlords is Rs.8,180. He has averred that he was very regular in paying the rent, and there was no justification for landlords to decline to receive the rent. A registered notice was sent on 23. 1990 along with a demand draft, but the same was refused to be accepted. Even before that, a lawyer’s notice was issued. That was also refused to be accepted. According to petitioner, under such circumstances, he had no other alternative except to approach the court, seeking permission to deposit the rent.

6. The same was seriously opposed by the landlords. According to them, the tenant has not complied with the conditions under Sec.8 of the Rent Control Act. It is only when the landlords themselves have filed a petition for eviction, apprehending that he will be evicted on the ground that he is a wilful defaulter, he has sought permission of court to deposit the rent into court, under Sec 8(5) of the Rent Control Act. According to them, rent from November, 1980 is in arrears. There is no proper deposit or tender.

7. All the three respondents in R.C.O.P. No. 193 of 1990 (landlords) fil