ORDER
M. Chockalingam, J.
1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Madras in an interlocutory application filed by the respondent under Section 11(4) of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18/1960.
2. As could be well seen from the available materials on hand, the respondent/landlord filed RCOP No.1982 of 2000 for eviction of the tenant under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act stating that the revision petitioner was a tenant under him and the agreed monthly rental was Rs.3300/-; that there was an arrears of rent from February 2000 to November, 2000, accumulating to Rs.33000/-. The said eviction petition was contested by the tenant stating that the rental arrears was only for the period from October 2000 and he was liable to pay the rent only for October,2000 and November, 2000; that since the agreed monthly rent was only Rs.2800/-, the balance was only Rs.5600/- and the same has got to be adjusted in the advance paid by him at the time of entering into tenancy. Pending eviction petition, the landlord filed an application under Section 11(4) seeking the relief that the court should direct the respondent/tenant to deposit the rental arrears, failing which to stop all the eviction proceedings. The said application was taken up for enquiry and the lower court has passed an order directing the tenant to deposit the rental balance of Rs.33000/- within a stipulated time and since the order was not complied with, the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction, dated 6.8.2001. Aggrieved tenant preferred R.C.A.No.630 of 2001 and obtained stay of operation of the order of the lower Authority. At the time of granting stay, the appellate Forum directed the tenant to deposit a sum of Rs.22700/- and the same was also deposited. Pending R.C.A., the landlord filed another application under Section 11(4) of the said Act and the same was taken on file in M.P.No.616 of 2001 alleging that there was a rental balance of Rs.43300/- upto September, 2001 and the tenant should be directed to pay the said arrears along with future rent to be fixed by the Court and in default to stop the proceedings and issue order of eviction of the tenant. On enquiry, the learned appellate Authority has passed an order on 10.12.2001 directing the tenant to pay the balance of Rs.43300/- within a month therefrom and in that terms, the said application was allowed. Aggrieved over the said order, the tenant has brought forth this civil revision petition.
3. What was contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that there was originally two months arrears at the time of filing of RCOP and apart from that advance of Rs.30000/- is well in the hands of the landlord, which could be adjusted towards the rental, if there was any arrears of rent excepting a month rent as advance. Despite the same, the Rent Controller has passed an order directing to deposit a sum of Rs.33000/-. Aggrieved over the same, RCA was filed. During the pendency of the RCA, the stay has been granted. On an application filed by the landlord under Section 11(4) of the Act, the tenant is directed to pay the balance of Rs.43300/- to the landlord within a month time. Under the stated circumstances, this civil revision petition is filed by the tenant. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would add that pending civil revision petition, a sum of Rs.26800/- was paid to the landlord and thus, there was no arrears of rent as per his calculation. Hence, the lower court’s order has got to be set aside. Countering the above contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent would urge that when there was an huge arrears of amount to Rs.33000/-, the landlord was constrained to filed RCOP. Since, the tenant continued to commit default, pending RCOP an application under Section 11(4) was filed and which was ordered. Despite the order, the tenant did not make payment. But, he challenged the same by way of RCA and at the time of stay, there was a direction by the appellate Forum to deposit a sum of Rs.22700/- and the same was also deposited. Pending R.C.A., the landlord filed another application under Section 11(4) of the said Act and on enquiry, the learned appellate Authority has passed an order on 10.12.2001 directing the tenant to pay a sum of Rs.43300/- within a month therefrom. Added further, the learned counsel that this is a case where there was a continuous wilful default on the part of the tenant and the landlord was to file Section 11(4) application, at that juncture and obtained an order from the court and the tenant was making part payment then and there. Hence, in view of all the orders passed and the continuous default on the part of the tenant would clearly reveal that this is a recalcitrant attitude and hence, it should not be permitted and the order of eviction passed in RCOP has got to be sustained. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would urge that there was an advance of Rs.33000/- in the hands of the landlord and excepting a month rent towards advance, all other sum could be adjusted towards the rental arrears and hence, calculating the same, there was no arrears of rent at all and in view of the same, the order passed in RCOP has got to be set aside.
4. After careful consideration of the rival submissions of both sides and the scrutiny of the available materials on hand, the court is of the view that all the contentions put forth by the revision petitioner’s side do not merit acceptance by court. It was an eviction petition filed by the landlord against the revision petitioner/tenant. It is not in dispute that he was the tenant under the landlord and there was no dispute about the relationship between the parties. But the dispute between them was as to the quantum of arrears of rent. An application under Section 11(4) of the Act was filed by the landlord before the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller, after hearing both sides, has passed an order directing the tenant to pay a particular sum, at that stage. It is pertinent to note that the tenant did not comply with the said order, but he challenged the same before the appellate forum. During the pendency of the appeal also, stay was granted on condition for payment of a particular sum towards the rental arrears. Therefore, under such circumstances, the landlord was also constrained to file another application under Section 11(4) of the Act and an order was passed directing the tenant to pay the arrears of rent fixed by the court at that point of time within a stipulated time. But, he did not comply with the said order. Apart from the earlier arrears of rent in question, there is no material placed before the Court to indicate that the tenant was paying the agreed rent during the pendency of the proceedings in RCOP and RCA then and there. This would be indicative of fact that the tenant has been in practice of making part payments out of the accumulated rent, but not as per the directions of the court and not as agreed between the parties. The original RCOP was filed on the ground of wilful default. Though there was a dispute between the parties as to the arrears of rent prior to the filing of the application, here is a case where at no point of time, the tenant was depositing the rent as per the agreed rent. Now, at this juncture, the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was an advance of Rs.33000/- and that could be well adjusted for the rental arrears, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that it was not as to the arrears of rent prior to the filing of the RCOP. The original petition was filed on the basis of wilful default and a duty is cast upon the tenant to pay the rental then and there, pending proceedings, but he failed to do so. Under the stated circumstances, all the contentions putforth by the revision petitioner’s side do not merit acceptance by the court. The revision petitioner/tenant is directed to vacate the premises and hand over the same within a period of six months herefrom. The proceedings pending on the file of the Rent Controller and Rent Control Appellate Authority are closed herewith.
5. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their costs. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed.