ORDER
1. This civil revision petition under Section 22 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960,
(for short ‘the Act’) is filed by the landlord.
The order passed by the learned Principal
senior civil Judge, Warangal in CMA No. 14
of 1996 on 6-8-1998, reversing
the order passed by the learned Rent
Controller in RCC No. 4 of 1994 is
challenged in this revision petition.
2. The facts may briefly be summarised before adverting to the questions that may fall for consideration. The petitioner-landlord filed RCC No.4 of 1994 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Warangal seeking eviction of the respondent/ tenant from the petition schedule premises on the ground that he committed wilful default in payment of rents and also on the ground of bona fide requirement. The respondent/tenant even before filing his counter in the said rent control case, filed an application in the month of May, 1994-1A No.1529 of 1994 purported to be under Section 11(4) of the Act, inter alia disputing the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. However, in the affidavit filed in support of IA No. 1529 of 1994, the respondent/tenant himself states that a sum of Rs. 1800.00 towards arrears of rent was sent on 15-3-1994 by Money Order to the petitioner herein and the same was refused by him. According to him, the said amount is towards the rent for the months of January and February, 1994, at the rate of Rs.900.00 per month. The respondent/tenant sought permission of the learned Rent Controller to deposit the rent into the Court without prejudice to his rights to contest the eviction petition on merits.
3. The petitioner herein opposed the said application contending that the respondent herein has to deposit the amount of rent from 1-3-1992 and not from January, 1994. The said application was disposed of by the learned Rent Controller by order dated 17-6-1996 directing the respondent herein “to deposit the arrears upto the date of the order before 1-7-1996
and also the future rents till the disposal of the main rent control case.”
4. It is clear from the said order that the learned Rent Controller passed the order accepting the plea of the respondent herein that the rents are due only from January, 1994 to April, 1994, amounting to Rs.3,600.00. The said order has become final since none of them have questioned the same.
5. The respondent, however, did not deposit the renls within the time granted by the learned Rent Controller and he accordingly filed – IA No.750 of 1996 purported to be one under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting the Court for extension of time for a period of another fortnight for depositing the arrears of rents. It is the specific case of the respondent herein that he obtained Challan for depositing the rent into the Court on 30-6-1996; but, due to sudden ill-health, he was advised bed rest and under those circumstances, could not deposit the amounts as directed by the Court. The petitioner herein opposed the said application. The learned Rent Controller, however, rejected the said application holding that the respondent/tenant is due to pay the rents from January, 1994 till the date of the order that is for two and half years amounting to Rs.27,000.00. However, at this stage, this Court, need not go into the details and the merits of the said order, as the respondent herein had challenged the said order by way of revision before this Court in CRP No.2916 of 1996, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and this Court by order dated 7-8-1996 confirmed the order passed by the learned Rent Controller in refusing to extend time for depositing the rents.
6. It is required to notice that the respondent herein preferred CM A No. 18 of 1996 against the order passed in IA No. 1529 of 1994, dated 17-6-1996, directing
the respondent herein to deposit the rents as requested by him and without prejudice to his right to contest the eviction petition. The said civil miscellaneous appeal – CMA No. 18 of 1996 was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge by order dated 6-8-1998. It is, thus, clear that the order passed by the learned Rent Controller directing the respondent herein to deposit the rents during the pendency of the case has become final. The order rejecting the request of the respondent/tenant for extension of time has also become final. In the meanwhile, the learned Rent Controller by order dated 25-7-1996 passed orders disposing of the rent control case, itself, directing the respondent/tenant to put the landlord in possession of the petition schedule premises on the ground that the respondent/tenant failed to pay the arrears of rent without any sufficient cause and, therefore, he is not entitled to contest the main case. All further proceedings were stopped and an order was passed under sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The respondent/tenant preferred an appeal-CMA No. 14 of 1996 on the file of the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, against the said order. The learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, allowed the appeal by order dated 6-8-1998 against which the present civil revision petition is filed.
7. Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ landlord, levelled serious criticism against the judgment of the learned appellate Court. It is contended that the respondent/tenant cannot be allowed to participate in the proceedings, as he failed to comply with the directions and the order passed by the learned Rent Controller to deposit the rents. It is submitted that an order passed under Section 11(4) of the Act, by the learned Rent Controller is a consequential order to the dismissal of the application filed by the respondent/tenant for extension of time. It is also urged that the respondent/
tenant voluntarily offered to deposit the rents, and. therefore, the question of making an inquiry into the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant does not arise. The order of the appellate authority suffers from serious legal infirmities.
8. Sri L. Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent/tenant submits that the learned Rent Controller could not have passed an order under Section 11(4) of the Act without requiring that respondent/ tenant to show as to whether there was any sufficient cause for not depositing the renls as directed. The order without giving such an opportunity to show sufficient cause would be totally untenable and illegal. It is also urged that the learned Rent Controller failed to appreciate the scope of the dispute raised by the respondent/tenant as to the jural relationship of the landlord and tenant. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the order of the appellate authority is in conformity with the principle laid down by this Court in Chaganlal v. Narsingh Pershad, (FB), and, therefore, does not require any interference by this Court.
In this case, the respondent tenant voluntarily filed an application and invited the order from the learned Rent Controller for depositing arrears of rent and future rents till the disposal of the main case. The Controller passed a very careful order directing the respondent/tenant to deposit the rents without prejudice to his rights and contentions. The respondent/tenant failed to comply with the directions having invited the order himself. However, he wanted extension of time for complying with the directions. The plea was rejected and ultimately upheld by this Court. In my considered opinion, the respondent/tenant cannot be allowed to re-agitate the matter and question the very same order directing him to deposit the rents. Such a course is not permissible and the orders that have become final between the parties cannot be
allowed to be re-opened on any ground whatsoever.
9. The decision in Chaganlal’s case (supra), upon which strong reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the respondent does not help him in any manner whatsoever in resolving the question that arises for consideration in this case. In Chaganlal’s case (supra) a Division Bench of this Court disagreeing with the decision of another Division Bench in CRP No.1327 of 1968 dated 19-6-1969 directed the matter to be referred to a Full Bench for its consideration on the following question :
“Where the relationship of landlord and tenant is in dispute, whether a summary inquiry can be made under Section 11 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease. Real and Eviction) Control Act, and orders for deposit of arrears of rent be passed under Section 11(3) of the Act.”
10. The Full Bench of this Court after elaborate consideration of the matter held that Section 11 is applicable not only to the cases where the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted, but also to the cases where such relationship is denied. For the purpose of passing an order under Section 11 of the Act, when the relationship of landlord and tenant is denied, “the Rent Controller must determine that question finally by making a regular enquiry and not provisionally by making a summary enquiry before assuming jurisdiction in Ihe matter and pass orders and such a determination will be the decision in the main eviction petition itself” As observed by the Full Bench, the provisions contained in Section 11 would enable a landlord to make an application either to the Controller or to the appellate authority, as the case may be, for the purposes of directing the tenant to pay or deposit the arrears of rent and also to continue to pay or deposit the subsequent rents that would become due and in case of failure on the part of the tenant to do so to make an order
directing the tenant to put him to possession of the building and determine all further proceedings.
11. In this case, it is required to notice that the respondent/tenant voluntarily filed the application purported to be one under Section 11(1) of the Act and invited an order from the learned Rent Controller directing him to deposit the rents. Such an application was filed by the respondent/tenant even before filing his counter in the main case. The said application filed by the respondent/tenant, as early as in May, 1994, was kept pending for almost two years. This is a case, where the tenant himself volunteered to deposit the rents without prejudice to his right to contest the eviction petition, on the ground that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant. This is not a case where the learned Rent Controller has adjudicated the dispute relating to the jural relationship of landlord and tenant in summary manner for the purpose of Section 11 of the Act. The very contention relating to the dispute of relationship of the landlord was given ago bye by the tenant himself, at least, for the limited purposes of the disposal of the application filed by him under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, the decision in Chaganlal’s case (supra), has no application to the facts of the case on hand. The said decision does not lend any support whatsoever to the plea put forth by the respondent/tenant.
12. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent/tenant, Sri L. Narasimha Reddy would urge that the learned Rent Controller in a given case is bound to find out as to whether there is any sufficient cause for the tenant in failing to pay or deposit the rents and only then may pass orders stopping all further proceedings, and direct the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. According to the learned Counsel, the dispute raised by the respondent/tenant with regard to the
jural relationship of landlord and tenant, itself, is sufficient cause for not depositing the rents as directed by the learned Rent Controller. 1 find it difficult to agree with the learned Counsel for the respondent. Such an argument would mean going in circles. The expression “sufficient cause” is required to be read in the context of whole of Section 11 of the Act. Deposit of the rent under sub-section (1) of Section 11 shall be made by the tenant within the time and in the manner ‘prescribed’. Subsection (4) of Section 11 would immediately spring into action the moment the tenant fails to pay the rents within the time and in the manner prescribed. The order passed by the learned Rent Controller prescribed the time and the manner. (The tenant in the instant case was directed to deposit the rents from January, 1994 onwards before 1-7-1996). Of course, sufficient cause may be shown in a given case by the tenant as to why he could not pay or deposit the rents as prescribed. But that does not mean that the tenant is entitled to challenge the very order directing him to deposit the amount by questioning the very jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to pass such an order. Such an attempt cannot constitute sufficient cause. Any such interpretation of Section 11 may amount to doing violence to the language employed in Section 11 of the Act. In fact the tenant in this case already made an attempt to show sufficient cause as to why he could not deposit rents as directed by the learned Rent Controller and sought for extension of time. But, the learned Controller as well as this Court rejected the request of the respondent/tenant and held that there was no sufficient cause. (Vide order of this Court in CRP No.2916 of 1996 dated 7-8-1996). In my considered opinion non payment of rents within the time stipulated by the learned Rent Controller per se attracts sub-section (4). The burden would be on the tenant to show sufficient cause giving valid reasons for non-payment/ deposit, as the case may be, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Rent Controller.
13. The decision in Santosh Mehta v. Om Prakash, , also would not render any assistance to the plea put-forth by the respondent/tenant. While construing Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent” Control Act, the Supreme Court observed that the controller is armed with a facilitating power. He may or may not strike out the tenant’s defence. A judicial discretion has built-in-self-restraint, has the scheme of the statute in mind. The Supreme Court accordingly held that the Court striking out a party’s defence is an exceptional step, not a routine visitation of a punitive extreme following upon a mere failure to pay rent. I fail to appreciate as to how the said judgment would render any assistance to resolve the issue that arises for consideration in this civil revision petition. As observed by the Supreme Court Section 15(7) itself confers jurisdiction upon the Rent Controller that he may by order strike out the defence in case a tenant fails to make payment or deposit rents. But, it docs not deal with a situation of non-compliance of the order passed by the Controller directing the tenant to deposit rents in the prescribed manner and stipulated time. The plea, that there was sufficient cause for the respondent/ tenant not to pay the rents is not a bona fide one. The plea taken by the respondent tenant that he need not deposit the amount inspite of the directions of the learned Rent Controller cannot be accepted to be a sufficient cause for not depositing the amounts, even though there is a dispute raised by the respondent/tenant with regard to the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. Such a plea is not available. It cannot be taken as a sufficient cause. The tenant is required to show sufficient cause as to why the amounts could not be deposited by him. In a given case such sufficient cause may be inferred from variety of factors. But challenging the validity of the order after falling to deposit the amounts as directed cannot be treated as a sufficient cause. Bona fides is wanting on the part of the tenant in taking such a
plea. The whole plea is mis-conceived. In fact the reasons recorded by the learned Rent Controller while dismissing IA No.750 of 1996 filed by the respondent/tenant purporting it to be under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure for extension oftime by a fortnight itself would show that he has not been able to show any sufficient cause. The learned Rent Controller rightly observed that even as on the date of passing of the order 25-7-1996 there has been no attempt whatsoever on the part of the respondent/tenant to deposit rents as directed by the learned Rent Controller.
14. For all the aforesaid reasons, the view taken by the appellate authority is untenable and un-sustainable. There is no question of further proceedings in RCC No.4 of 1994 for deciding the matter on merits. The facts clearly attract sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act. The learned Rent Controller rightly stopped all further proceedings declaring that the respondent/ tenant is not entitled to contest the main case and passed the order directing the respondent/tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building immediately. The order passed by the leaned Rent Controller is restored by setting aside the appellate order dated 6-8-1998.
15. Accordingly the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I grant four months time to the respondent/tenant to vacate the premises and put the petitioner-landlord in possession, subject to the condition of the respondent/tenant depositing entire arrears of rent as on today, within four weeks from today and continue to deposit the rents for the period he will be in possession of the premises under this order.