IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 14/06/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN
C.R.P.(NPD) No.2313 of 2005
and C.R.P.(NPD) 2314 and 2315 of 2005
1.Bahadurmul Sowcar
2.Subramani
.. Petitioners in C.R.P.
NPD No.2313/05
Bahadurmul Sowcar
Rep.by his Power of Attorney
Agent Subramanian
.. Petitioner in C.R.P
NPD Nos.2314 & 2315/05
-Vs-
$1.M.R.Lakshmanan
2.M.R.Narayanan
3.M.R.Muthiah
4.M.R.Sevugan Chetti
5.M.R.Avichi
6.P.L.Chidambaram
7.P.L.Sathappan
8.P.L.Muthiah .. Respondents in C.R.P.
NPD Nos.2313 &2314/05.
Muthiah .. Respondent in C.R.P.
NPD No.2315/05.
Revision Petitions filed against the judgment dated 29.8.2005, in
R.C.A.Nos.2,3 of 2003 & 7/1997, on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge,
Tiruvannamalai (Appellate Authority) confirming the order dated 25.2 .2003,
25.2.2003 and 24.10.1997 in H.R.C.O.P.Nos.16/1998, 9/2000 and RCOP No.3/1997
respectively, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai
(Rent Controller).
!For Petitioners : Mr.A.Venkatesan
^For Respondents : Mr.T.V.Ramanujam,
Senior Counsel, for
Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari.
:COMMON ORDER
I. C.R.P.NPD No.2313/2005:
The unsuccessful tenant before both the authorities below is the first
revision petitioner. H.R.C.O.P.No.16/1998 was filed by the respondents herein
under Sec.10(2)(ii)(a) and 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease & Rent
Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) on the grounds of subletting
and wilful default against the revision petitioners for an order of eviction
of the revision petitioner from the property bearing Door No.1, Asaliamman
Koil Street, Tiruvannamalai Town. The respondents have stated in the eviction
petition that the premises in question was occupied by the 1st revision
petitioner 3 5 years ago on an yearly rent of Rs.750/-. The petition premises
was originally belonged to one Murugappa Chettiar and Palaniyappa Chettiar.
The said Murugappa Chettiar died in the year 1992 and Palaniappa Chettiar died
in 1975. The respondents 1 to 5 herein are the sons of Murugappa Chettiar and
respondents 6 to 8 are the sons of Palaniappa Chettiar. Thus all the 8
persons joined together and filed the eviction petition. It is the case of
the landlords that the first revision petitioner/tenant did not pay the rent
from the year 1992 onwards and he has been squatting on the property without
paying any rent for the past 5 years. In anticipation of filing eviction
petition, the 1st revision petitioner suddenly sent a notice on14.7.1995 along
with a Demand Draft for Rs.2250/-. In that notice dated 14.7.1995, the tenant
has stated that he has already filed a petition in H.R.C.O.P. No.2/1988
before the Rent Controller through his power of attorney to deposit the rent
into court and the same was allowed. The tenant has also informed about the
filing of H.R.C.O.P.No.14/1990 and the said H.R.C.O.P.No.14/1990 was dismissed
on 29.6.1993 for not taking steps to bring the Legal Representatives of
Murugappa Chettiar. The tenant has further informed in the notice dated
14.7.95 that he deposited the rent into court till 1992. As he could not find
out the Legal Representatives of Murugappa Chettiar in spite of his best
efforts, he could not pay the same from September 1992 to till date.
According to the tenant, he came to know about the 3rd respondent herein only
now through his lawyer and therefore he sent the notice dated 14.7.95
enclosing a demand draft for Rs.2,250/- being the rent for the period from
September 1992 to August 1995. To this notice dated 14.7.95, the 3rd
respondent herein sent a reply on 14.12.1995 stating that having kept quiet
for the past 5 years without sending the rent, the tenant could not come
forward to pay the rent and returned the demand draft sent by the tenant.
Subsequently, the tenant/first petitioner herein sent a sum of Rs.750/- along
with the notice dated 9.7.1996 and it was again returned by the landlords in
their notice dated 23.9.96. The respondents herein further alleged in the
RCOP that the 1st petitioner sublet the property to the 2nd petitioner and
hence the Revision Petitioners are liable to be evicted on the ground of
wilful default and subletting.
2. The 1st petitioner herein filed a counter in HRCOP No.16/1998 and
resisted the eviction proceedings. In his counter, the tenant stated that
even though he came to know about the death of Murugappa Chettiar in the year
1993, only in 1995 he could obtain the particulars of Legal Representatives of
Murugappa Chettiar and immediately he sent a notice dated 14.7.95 enclosing a
demand draft for Rs.2,250/- being the rent for the period from September 1992
to August1995. Even when Murugappa Chettiar was alive, he filed HRCOP
Nos.2/1988 and 14/1990 and has been depositing the rent into court. When
Murugappa Chettiar died, as he could not know the particulars of Legal
Representatives of Murugappa Chettiar, he could not take steps in HRCOP
No.14/1990 which was dismissed on 29.8.1993. The moment he came to know about
the 3rd respondent herein, he immediately sent the arrears of Rs.2,250/- by
demand draft along with notice dated 14.7.95. Even for the period September
1995 to August 1996 he sent a demand draft on 9.7.96 but it was returned
without any justifiable reasons. Therefore he sent the amounts by Money Order
on 22.11.96 and that was also refused. Therefore he filed HRCOP No,.3/1996
for depositing the rent from September 1992 to August 1996 but the same was
dismissed against which an appeal in RCA No.7/1997 was filed and pending.
Therefore, according to the tenant, he has not committed any default at all.
Even assuming that he has committed default, it is not wilful default.
3. The Rent Controller by order dated 25.2.2003 ordered eviction on
the ground of wilful default, after holding that subletting was not proved.
The appeal was filed in RCA No.2/2003 was also dismissed by the Appellate
Authority on 29.8.2005. Challenging the same, this revision petition was
filed by the tenant.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. I have also perused the
documents filed in support of their submissions.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
both the authorities below have not rendered a proper finding on the basis of
the evidence let in by the parties. He further submitted that the tenant
could not continue to deposit the rent in HRCOP No.2/198 8 as the Power of
Attorney who filed the petition on behalf of the tenant passed away.
Similarly, the tenant could not deposit the rent in HRCOP No.14/1990, as the
same was dismissed for not taking steps to bring the legal heirs of deceased
Murugappa Chettiar, despite his best efforts to trace them. As soon as the
tenants came to know about one of the legal heirs, he immediately sent a
Demand Draft for Rs.2,250/- and another Demand Draft for Rs.750/-, both of
them were returned. Even the two Money Orders sent by the tenants were also
returned and immediately he filed a petition in HRCOP No.3/1996 for depositing
the rent from 9/1992 to 8/1996. In such circumstances, if the totality of the
situation is taken into consideration, according to the learned counsel for
the petitioners, the tenant is not said to have committed wilful default.
6. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the
petitioners relied on the following judgments:-
(1) AIR 1985 S.C. 582 (S.Sundaram v. V.R.Pattabhiraman); (2)1998(I) CTC 531
(Purandara Vittal v. Radha Bai); (3) 1999(III) CTC 512 ( Subbiah, S.M. v.
S.Nandappan); (4) 2002-2-L.W. 559 (Loganathan, S. v. V. S.Rangasamy); (5)
2003-4-L.W.671 (P.M.Punnoose v. K.M.Munneruddin and others) and 6)
2004-3-L.W. 487 (V.Subramanian v. J.Venkatraman & another).
7. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents submitted that both the authorities below have elaborately
considered the evidence let in and on the basis of the evidence, have rendered
a finding that the tenant has committed wilful default which cannot be
interfered with by this court under Sec.25 of the Act in the absence of any
illegality or perversity.
8. He relied on the judgment of this court reported in 2000-2-L.W. 7
08 (Vasuvaithiar,P. v. R.M.Rangoo Chettiar).
9. In AIR 1985 S.C. 582 cited supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that default simplicitor would not be sufficient to evict the tenant.
It must further be shown that the default is wilful. Only when the default is
wilful, the tenant can be evicted. Wilful default means, a deliberate and
intentional default knowing fully well the legal consequences thereof.
10. In 1998(I) CTC 531 cited supra, this court held as follows:-
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, brought to my
notice a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in Appavoo
(dead) by L.Rs. V. Sree Dharma Vinayakan Dhamraraja Devasthanam, 1991 (1)
M.L.J. 41. That case arose out of the judgment from the Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act. Default was alleged in the payment of the rent.
There was a demand for a higher rent by the landlord. All the arrears of rent
at the agreed rate was paid by the tenant. The appellate Judge took the
conduct of the landlord demanding rent at a higher rate than the agreed rent
into consideration as a circumstance to find against the landlord’s plea that
the tenant being a wilful defaulter. This reasoning is specifically referred
to in the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of India. The Honourable
Judges upheld the order of the appellate authority and set aside the order of
eviction passed by this Court in the revision. In this case also, there is a
demand for a higher rent which is at eight times the original rent. The
landlords admitted before the court that the rent was only Rs.50/- and not
Rs.400/-. This conduct of the landlords is also taken into account by me in
holding that the tenant cannot be said to be guilty of committing a wilful
default in the payment of the rent. It is no doubt true that the rent for the
month of March 1983 sent by the tenant was refused by the landlords. It is
also on record that the refused rent for March, 1983 was not sent again by the
tenant. All the tenant brought to my notice a judgment of this Court reported
in G.Kanniah Chetty V. H.Subramaniam (died) and others, 1994 T.L.N.J. 124.
In that case also, the rent sent for February 1983 was refused by the
landlord. The subsequent rents for the subsequent months alone were sent by
the tenant and they were also refused. In that context, a similar argument
was advanced before the learned single Judge and it was dealt with as follows:
“The point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under each
month, he was sending only Rs.250 which represents only one month rent and no
arrears of rent were sent. This contention is rightly repelled by the learned
counsel for the respondent who would submit that once a valid tender is made,
there is no need to make again a second tender with regard to the same amount.
I find that this submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is
correct. So, it cannot be stated that there was no valid tender.”
Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that not sending the March, 1983
rent again, which was earlier refused, would in any way be held against the
tenant. The rent for March, 1983 was validly tendered and illegally refused
by the landlord.
9. For all the reasons stated above, I am of the firm opinion that
the courts below have committed a serious error in law as well as on facts in
holding that the tenant had committed wilful default. The learned counsel for
the respondent brought to my notice a judgment of this Court, wherein it has
been held that when the courts below concurrently found on a particular point
against a party to it, it cannot be possible for this court to interfere in
such a concurrent finding unless those findings could be attacked as perverse
findings. I too agree with the law laid down by this Court. However at the
same time, I do not want to lose sight of the fact that when the landlord had
not established his case of wilful default, he is not entitled to an order of
eviction. To grant relief in favour of the landlord in such a situation,
would amount to rendering great injustice to a tenant. The power of revision
under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings ( Lease and Rent Control) Act
appears to be wider than the power of revision of this court under Section 115
of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Section 25 of the above said Act, this
Court can satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceeding or the
correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed. Under
these circumstances and in view of the power of revision under Section 25 of
the above Act, I am inclined to interfere in this case to render justice to
the tenant. Accordingly the revision is allowed with cost. The cost is
quantified at Rs.500.
11. In the above case, the arrears of rent was for three months from
March 1983 to May 1983. When March 1983 rent was tendered by this tenant, it
was refused by the landlords and thereafter rent was not sent and this court
held that, not sending the rent of March 1983 again which was earlier refused,
would not be held against the tenant. This court further held that under
Sec.25 of the Act High court can satisfy itself as to the regularity of the
proceedings before the authorities or correctness, legality or propriety of
any decision or order passed.
12. In 1999(III) CTC 512 cited supra, this court held that by failing
to advert to the admission of the landlord regarding payment of rent by the
tenant before filing of the RCOP itself and allowing the eviction petition,
the authorities below committed material irregularity in the order of
eviction.
13. In 2002-2-L.W.559 cited supra, this court held as follows:-
15. It is, further seen that the tenant issued notice under Ex.P-4 directing
the landlord to specify the bank for depositing the rent. The above notice is
dated 1.7.98 i.e., prior to the filing of R.C.O.P. The conduct of the tenant
in sending two months rent by money order before the date of filing the
R.C.O.P and issuing notice to the landlord directing him to specify the name
of the bank to enable the tenant to deposit the rent, will only show that the
tenant has not committed any wilful default in payment of rent. In any event,
the above delay and conduct of the tenant will not amount to wilful default
much less supine indifference. The Rent Controller has not properly adverted
to the above aspect of the case and therefore, I have no hesitation in holding
that the finding of the Rent Controller, which is confirmed by the Appellate
Authority, that the revision petition has committed wilful default is based on
misreading of the evidence.
16. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also relies upon a decision
of this Court reported in Tamil Nadu Motors V. N.Lakshmi (1999 -3-L.W 284),
wherein it is held thus:-
“To arrive at a finding that the tenant is in wilful default, the mere
fact that the tenant is in arrears of rent would not be enough and the Court
has to consider whether there has been intentional violation of a clear
obligation to pay the rent”
The Supreme Court had also occasion to consider a similar plea in the
case reported in M/s.Chordia Automobiles V. Moosa (2000 (II) MLJ 10 8 =
2001-1-L.W. 737. In the above decision, the Supreme Court has held thus:-
“Further, the conduct of the appellant throughout in the past was not
that of the defaulter or irregular payer of rent. Thus all these
circumstances cumulatively come to only one conclusion that the appellant
cannot be held to be a wilful defaulter”
Even though the payment of rent into Court after filing R.C.O.P is not
relevant in deciding the question of wilful default, the conduct of the tenant
in tendering two months rent by money order, even in the month of June 1998,
will establish the case of the tenant that he has not committed wilful
default. If the principles of law laid down in the above decisions are
considered along with the admitted facts in this case, it would practically
negative the contention of the landlord that the revision petitioner has
committed wilful default in payment of rent. Hence, I hold that the findings
of the Courts below that the tenant has committed wilful default are liable to
be set aside.
14. In the above judgment, this court after considering the conduct
of sending two months’ rent by Money Order before the date of filing of the
RCOP and issuing notice to the landlord directing him to specify the name of
the bank to deposit the rent, held that the tenant has not committed wilful
default.
15. In 2003-4-L.W.671 cited supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that when the tenant has always made an effort at paying or tendering the
rent, the delay or default, if any, attributable to the tenant is bona fide
and the same cannot be held to be wilful.
16. In 2004-3-L.W. 487 cited supra, this court after considering the
conduct of the tenant in paying the monthly arrears from November 19 86 to
March 1987 on the first hearing date of the RCOP, held that the petitioner has
not committed any wilful default.
17. By relying on the above judgments, the learned counsel for the
petitioners contended that the delay attributable to the tenants is not wilful
and therefore the orders of the authorities below are liable to be set aside.
18. In 2000-2-L.W.708 cited supra, this court held as follows:-
“14.Under Rent Control Act, rent is payable as and when it becomes due. It is
a statutory obligation on the part of tenant to pay rent, according to the
tenancy agreement. If any date is fixed for payment, the same will have to be
paid within 15 days from the due date and if no fixed date is given for
payment, by the end of month following the month for which rent is due. In
case tenant is not paying the amount as per the provisions, he must be deemed
to be defaulter in paying rent. By paying Rs.4,550/- on 18.3.1994 after
filing application itself shows that tenant has committed default in payment
of rent and that is why he has paid the amount in lump. Subsequent payment of
Rs.975/- also makes it clear that more amount was due as on the date of
eviction petition. So, the contention taken by tenant that he has paid entire
rent as and when it becomes due was rightly rejected by Rent Controller as
well as Appellate authority.
15. Even if the tenant has paid the entire rent during the course of
proceedings, that by itself will not absolve him from contending that he is
not wilful defaulter. AS rightly found by Appellate Authority, when the
litigation is pending between parties, tenant should have been little more
careful in paying rent as and when it became due to discharge the statutory
obligation. Even from the counter, it is clear that he used to pay the amount
in lump only and not on the due dates. From 21.11.1991 till 31.12.1993, i.e.
for more than two years, tenant has paid only a sum of Rs.1,300/-, is admitted
by him. That admission has been given importance by the Appellate Authority
in his judgment. Appellate authority has stated thus,
(Vernacular portion deleted)
16. If tenant has paid only four months rent during the entire period,
naturally he has to explain why rent was not paid for more than 20 months.
But at the same time, he took a false contention that he has paid the entire
arrears and not liable to pay any rent. After having taken such a contention
and paying the amount in lumpsum during the course of this proceedings shows
that the intention of tenant was not bona fide and he has taken the contention
knowing full well that the same is false. Under the above circumstances, he
could be termed only as ‘wilful defaulter’. By taking false contention, his
intention is clear that he does not want to pay any rent unless he is
compelled to do so. Authorities below are justified in holding that tenant is
a wilful defaulter and he is liable to be evicted.
19. In the above case, this court held that there is a statutory
obligation on the part of the tenant to pay the rent according to the
agreement and if the tenant is not paying the rent as per the agreement, he is
a defaulter. Even if he has paid the rent during the course of the
proceedings, it would not absolve him from contending that he is not a wilful
defaulter. Further, when the litigation is pending between parties, tenant
should have been little more careful in paying rent as and when it became due
to discharge the statutory obligation.
20. In the light of the above judgments let me consider the facts of
the present case.
21. The only point that arises for consideration in this revision
petition is whether the non-payment of monthly arrears by the 1st petitioner
for the period from September 1992 to August 1995 and for the subsequent
period is wilful or not.
22. The reason given by the tenant for not depositing the rent in
HRCOP No.2/1988 in which he got an order in his favour is that as the Power of
Attorney passed away, he could not deposit the rent in that petition and
therefore he filed another petition in HRCOP No.14/1990 for deposit of rent.
23. I am unable to accept this reason of the tenant became the death
of the Power of Attorney does not abate the petition itself and the tenant can
very well continue depositing the rent in HRCOP No.2/1988. Instead, he chose
to file HRCOP No.14/1990 but the same was dismissed on 29.8.1993 for not
taking steps to bring the Legal Representatives on record. The reason given
by the tenant for not taking steps is that he could not get particulars of the
Legal Representatives of the deceased Murugappa Chettiar despite his best
efforts. This reason is also not acceptable to me, as, in the oral evidence
of R.W.2, he has admitted that no steps were taken to pay the rent from 1992
to 19 96. He further deposed that the landlord and his children have been
visiting the place for deepam and the temple at Thiruvannamalai for the past
20 years. In such circumstances, what prevented the tenant from approaching
the children of the landlord f or the payment of rent is not at all explained
by the tenants.
24. Insofar as the return of the demand draft and the money order is
concerned, as already stated, in stead of paying the rent then and there,
according to the agreement, the tenant has suddenly woken up from his slumber
and sent a demand draft for three years rent in one lumpsum. In such
circumstances, the landlord is within his right to return the demand draft as
the tenant has violated his statutory obligation to pay the rent when it
became due. Even otherwise, when it was returned, the tenant must invoke
Sec.8(5) of the Act before the landlord gets a cause of action. Elaborate
procedure is contemplated under Sec.8 of the Act and the provisions are to be
strictly complied with by the tenant if he wants to take advantage of the
same. The tenant has to take steps one after another as stipulated and only
if the landlord still refuses to receive the rent, the tenant can come to
court under Sec.8(5) of the Act. The tenant cannot jump procedural steps
contemplated under Section 8 of the Act. It is obvious that the 1 st
petitioner has not followed the procedures contemplated under Sec.8 of the Act
and he has jumped the procedure in filing the HRCOP No.3/1996 and the same was
also dismissed.
25. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the evidence on
record would undoubtedly point an accusing finger at the tenant and both the
authorities have rightly come to the conclusion on the basis of evidence that
it is a case of wilful default. Sitting in revision under Sec.25of the Act
1960, I am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the
authorities below as I do not find any illegality or irregularity or
perversity in it.
26. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be
dismissed as devoid of merits.
II. C.R.P.NPD Nos.2314 & 2315 of 2005:
27. (a) C.R.P.NPD No.2315/2005:
C.R.P.NPD No.2315/2005 is filed against the judgment dated 29.8.2005 made in
RCA No.7/1997. RCA No.7/1997 was filed by the 1st petitioner against the
order dated 24.10.1997 made in RCOP No.3/1997. In RCOP No.3/1997, the
revision petitioner prayed to permit him to deposit the rent from September
1992 to August 1996 and also the future rent into court. The revision
petitioner has stated that he had filed a petition in HRCOP Nos.2/1988 and
14/1990 for depositing the rent. But he could not continue to do so as his
Power of Attorney passed away and HRCOP No.14/1990 was dismissed for not
having taken steps to bring the Legal Representatives of the deceased
Murugappa Chettiar on record. Once he came to know about the respondent
herein as the son of Murugappa Chettiar, he immediately sent a notice dated
14.7.1995 to him enclosing a demand draft for Rs.2,250/- being the arrears of
rent for the period September 1992 to August 1995. But the same was returned
by the respondent. He sent the rent for the period September 1995 to August
1996 by demand draft on 9.7.1996 and the same was also returned by the
respondent. On 22.11.96 he sent a sum of Rs.1,000/- and another sum of
Rs.2,000/- by money order. The same was refused by the respondent. Hence he
filed the above petition under Sec.8(5) of the Act.
28. This petition was resisted by the respondent by filing a counter
by stating that having filed two similar petitions for the same relief earlier
the revision petitioner cannot be permitted to file another petition for the
same relief. Having kept quiet for three years and failed to discharge
statutory duties he cannot take recourse to Sec.8(5) of the Act.
29. The Rent Controller by order dated 24.10.1997 dismissed the
petition by holding that having committed wilful default in the payment of
rent, the revision petitioner should not be allowed to deposit the rent under
Sec.8(5) of the Act. Against this order, the revision petitioner filed an
appeal in RCA No.7/1997 and the Appellate Authority has also dismissed the
appeal on 29.8.2005 by holding that having filed RCOP No.2/1988 and got a
favourable order, the tenant should have continued to deposit the rent in that
petition itself. Even another petition filed in RCOP No.14/1990 was allowed
to be dismissed and having failed to pay the rent for the past three years
without proper explanation, the revision petitioner should not be permitted to
deposit the rent into court under Sec.8(5) of the Act. Challenging these
orders, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant.
30. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the
authorities below have committed illegality in not permitting the petitioner
to deposit the rent.
31. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent-landlord supported the orders of the authorities below relying on
the judgment of this court reported in 1997-2-L.W. 567 ( Sundararajan, S. v.
S.A.Viswanathan Chetty and another).
32. Sec.8 of the Act has to be read along with Sec.10(2)(i) of the
Act. It is the statutory duty of the tenant to tender the rent in accordance
with Sections 10 (2)(i) of the Act. It means that Sec.8 of the Act should be
invoked by the tenant before the landlord gets a cause of action for
non-payment of rent in time. A defaulter is not entitled to the benefits of
the Act. Once the landlord gets cause of action, the subsequent refusal by
the landlord is justified. When a tenant invokes Section 8(5) of the Act, it
is his duty to pay the rent in court as and when it becomes due. Instead of
actually paying the rent to landlord, he gets discharged by paying the rent in
court. That means, the court becomes the agent of the landlord and gives the
tenant a discharge. Having committed default wilfully and intentionally,
fully knowing about the consequences arising thereof, a tenant is not entitled
to invoke Sec.8(5) of the Act.
33. In this case, it is not in dispute that the revision petitioner
filed HRCOP No.2/1988 and got a favourable order for depositing the rent. No
acceptable reason was given by the tenant for discontinuing the deposit of
rent in that petition except by saying that Power of Attorney who initiated
the petition passed away. The second petition filed for the same relief in
HRCOP No.14/1990 was also allowed to be dismissed. Thereafter, admittedly no
rent was paid and only in June 1995, a demand draft was taken for the rental
arrears for the period from September 1992 to August 1995 and sent to the
respondentlandlord. Except by saying that he was not able to find out the
Legal Representatives of Murugappa Chettiar, no other reason was given for the
default of three years. Even the evidence let in would prove that the Legal
Representatives are visiting the place of the tenant every now and then and in
such circumstances, the tenant committed wilful default as held by me in
C.R.P.NPD No.2313/2005. Therefore, a cause of action arose for the landlord
for evicting the tenant and applying the law laid down by this court in
1997-2- L.W. 567 (supra), this revision petition is liable to be dismissed
and the orders of the authorities below are to be upheld.
(b) C.R.P.No.2314/2005:
34. This revision petition has been filed by the same tenant who
filed C.R.P.(NPD)No.2313 of 2005 and C.R.P.(NPD) No.2315/2005. In this case,
the revision petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 29.8.2005 rendered
in RCA No.3/2003. RcA No.3/2003 was filed against the order dated 25.2.2003
made in HRCOP No.9/200 0, dismissing the petition filed by the revision
petitioner, permitting him to deposit the rent from September 2000 to August
2001 and also the future rent into court. In HRCOP No.9/2000, the petitioner
has stated that as he was not able to trace the legal heirs of Murugappa
Chettiar, in spite of his best efforts, he could not send the rent for the
period from September 1992 to August 1995. In July 1995 he came to know about
the 3rd respondent as the son of the deceased Murugappa Chettair and
immediately he sent the rent for the period by sending demand draft but the
same was refused by the 3rd respondent. He again sent another demand draft
for the period from September 1995 to August 1995 and the same was also
refused. Thereafter, he sent two money orders for a sum of Rs.3,000/- and
that was also refused. He file d HRCOP No.3/1997 to deposit the rent from
September 1992 to August 1996 and after contest it was dismissed and the
appeal filed by him in RCA No.7/1997 is pending. In the meanwhile, the
eviction petition was filed by the respondents herein in HRCOP No.16/1998 and
pending HRCOP.No.16/1998 the revision petitioner paid a sum of Rs.4,500/-
being the rent for the period September 1992 to August 1998 and thereafter he
he paid another sum of Rs.1,500/- for the period from September 1998 to August
2000. These amounts were paid to the counsel for the respondents herein. But
when the rent was paid for the period September 2000 to August 2001 to the
very same counsel by the petitioner herein, he refused to receive the same.
Thereafter, he sent the rent by money order and the same was returned by the
3rd respondent. Hence he filed the above petition under Sec.8(5)of the Act.
It was resisted by the 3rd respondent herein by filing a counter. The Rent
Controller by order dated 25.2.2 003 dismissed the same by holding that the
tenant has failed to follow the procedure enumerated under Sec.8 of the Act.
The appeal filed in RCA No.3/2003 was also dismissed by the Appellate
Authority on 29.8.2005. The Appellate Authority considered the facts that the
tenant already filed HRCOP Nos.2/1988 and 14/1990 and RCOP No.3/1997 to
deposit the rent into court and held that the tenant would not be permitted to
file one application after another when he could have very well deposited the
rent either in HRCOP Nos.2/1988 or 14/1990. Having failed to deposit in the
above HRCOPs., the Appellate Authority held that the tenant cannot be
permitted to deposit now in this petition, that too, after committing wilful
default. Challenging this order, the above revision petition has been filed.
35. I have already dismissed CRP NPD No.2315/2005 and the reasons
given by me for dismissal of CRP NPD No.2315/2005 would apply mutatis mutandis
to this CRP NPD No.2314/2005 also. I have also dismissed CRP NPD No.2313/2005
thereby confirming the orders of the eviction passed against the revision
petitioner by the authorities below on the ground of wilful default. Hence, I
am not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities
below in not permitting the petitioner herein to deposit the rent under
Sec.8(5) of the Act. Hence this CRP NPD No.2314/2005 is liable to be
dismissed.
36. In the result, all these three Civil Revision Petitions are
dismissed. No costs. C.M.P.No.20860/2005 is also dismissed.
sks
To
1.The Principal Sub-Judge, Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.