Arputham vs Singaravelu Nadar and Sons

M. Srinivasan, J.—The revision petition is against an order of the Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, who is the Appellate Authority Under the

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, dismissing an appeal against an order passed by the Rent Controller, Nagercoil, u/s

11(4) of the Act.

On the 16th of April, 1986 the Rent Controller passed an order u/s 11(3) of the Act directing the petitioner herein to deposit the entire arrears

of rent on or before 31-5-1986. The petitioner did not make the deposit within the time granted and ultimately, an order was passed by the Rent

Controller on 17-6-1986, stopping all further proceedings and directing the petitioner to hand over possession of the premises to the landlords on

or before 31-7-1986. That order was challenged in appeal by the petitioner and the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal confirming the order

of the Rent Controller.

In this revision petition it is argued that the Rent Controller did not pass an order u/s 11(4) of the Act in I.A.No. 15 of 1986 which was the

Application filed u/s 11 by the landlords. It is contended that the requirements of the section could be satisfied only by passing a separate order in

the application and passing a consequential order thereafter in the main R.C.O.P. It is argued that the Rent Controller passed the order u/s 11(4) in

the Main R.C.O.P. straight away, instead of passing a separate order in the interlocutory application and then passing a consequential order in

R.C.O.P. I do not see any substance in this argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. The section does not prescribe any such requirement as

contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Section 11(4) of the Act is in the following terms:

If any tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant

shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the

building.

As per the wording of the section, the only order that has got to be passed by the Rent Controller, after satisfying himself that the arrears of rent

had not been deposited as directed by the order u/s 11(3) and that the tenant did not show any sufficient cause for his default, is one stopping all

further proceedings and directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. Obviously, that order has to be passed only in the

main eviction petition. The Rent Controller has done that in this case.

It is also contended that the Appellate Authority is in error in confirming the order of eviction when the tenant had deposited the entire amount in

the appellate court at the time when he filed the appeal. I do not agree with learned Counsel for the petitioner. Once the petitioner failed to deposit

as directed by the Rent Controller, an order u/s 11(4) would automatically follow and the Rent Controller made no error in passing that order.

Consequently, the Appellate Authority was right in confirming that order.

There being no merit in the revision petition, it has to be dismissed and it is dismissed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for time to vacate the premises. He submits that his client has been conducting a colour laboratory in

the premises and that he would require long time for vacating the premises as that he would be able to fix up some alternative accommodation.

Learner Counsel for the respondents agrees for the grant of time, but on condition that the petitioner files an affidavit of undertaking that he would

vacate the premises without driving the landlord to the execution court.

The petitioner is granted time till the 30th September, 1988 for vacating the premises. But, he will be entitled to such time only on the following

conditions:

(1) The petitioner should file an affidavit in this Court on or before 25-1-1988 undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 30-9-1988 without

driving the respondents to the execution court.

(2) The petitioner shall pay the rent due for the premises regularly on or before 15th of every succeeding month, by mode which is most convenient

to the tenant, till he vacates the premises.

(3) In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed subject to the above observations. There will be no order as to costs.