K.M. Mohammed Fazal vs Ashraf

Mr. B. Rajendran, J.—The tenant is the revision petitioner in all the above Civil Revision Petitions. The landlords are the respondents herein. The issue involved in all the Civil Revision Petitions are common and identical. The counsel on both sides have also advanced common arguments and therefore, these civil revision petitions are disposed of by this common order.

For the sake of convenience, the revision petitioner shall hereinafter be referred to as ''tenant'' and the respondents shall be referred to as ''landlords''.

The landlords have filed R.C.O.P. No. 2118 of 2003 before the Court below for fixation of fair rent at the rate of Rs.1,52,220.23 per month for the petition mentioned premises occupied by the tenant. The learned Rent Controller, by an order dated 28.01.2005, fixed the rent at the rate of Rs.81,463/- per month for the premises in question. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2005, landlords have also filed R.C.A. No. 307 of 2005 contending that the fair rent fixed was meager. The tenant also filed R.C.A. No. 343 of 2005 claiming that the rent fixed was exorbitant. Both the Rent Control Appeals were taken up together and by an order dated 24.10.2009, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the learned Rent Controller thereby dismissing both the Rent Control Appeals.

It is claimed by the tenant that he applied for certified copy of the judgment and decree in R.C.A. No. 343 of 2005 filed by him on 27.10.2009 for preferring an appeal. It is further claimed that before the Court below, the case bundle relating to R.C.A. No. 343 of 2005 has been lost and the certified copy of the judgment was not issued to him. However, it was later complied with, stamps were called for on 15.12.2011, stamps were deposited on 17.12.2011 and the copy of the order was made ready on 22.12.2011 and it was received by the counsel on the same day i.e., 22.12.2011. In the meantime the winter vacation for this court intervened and ultimately the Civil Revision Petition No. 351 of 2012 was filed only on 12.01.2012.

The C.R.P. No. 351 of 2012 filed by the tenant against the order fixing the fair rent, came up for admission before this Court and after advancing some argument, the counsel for the tenant withdrew C.R.P. No. 351 of 2012 on 01.03.2012. In view of the withdrawal of the C.R.P. No. 351 of 2012, the order passed by the Court below fixing the fair rent has become final.

In the meantime, the landlords have filed R.C.O.P. No. 191 of 2010 for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of wilful default in remitting the difference in actual rent and fair rent on 25.01.2010. This Rent Control Original Petition was contested by the tenant. Ultimately, after contest, the R.C.O.P. No. 191 of 2010 was allowed on 22.01.2011 and eviction was ordered. As against this order, the tenant has filed R.C.A. No. 233 of 2011 before the Appellate Authority and obtained an order of interim stay on condition that the tenant deposit Rs.10,00,000/- towards arrears of rent on or before 03.06.2011. The tenant also deposited the entire amount on or before 03.06.2011, as directed.

The landlord has filed M.P. No. 244 of 2011 under Section 11 (4) of the Act in R.C.A. No. 233 of 2011 to direct the tenant to deposit Rs. 65,63,869/- or at least admitted arrears at the rate of Rs.51,069/- per month. The Appellate Authority, taking into consideration that the tenant himself had originally agreed that the fair rent will be Rs.51,069/- per month, directed the tenant to deposit Rs.21,71,624/- on 21.11.2012 on or before 06.03.2013. The tenant also deposited the amount on 05.03.2013.

The landlord has also filed another application under Section 11 (4) of the Act in M.P. No. 364 of 2012 on 23.07.2012 to direct the tenant to pay the balance sum of Rs.31,68,521/- on the basis of the fair rent fixed. By an order dated 05.12.2012, the tenant was directed to pay the sum of Rs.31,68,521/- on or before 02.01.2013. In order to ensure compliance, M.P. No. 364 of 2012 was posted for hearing on 03.01.2013. In the meanwhile, the tenant has filed M.P. No. 12 of 2013 seeking extension of time for depositing the amount within time. The court below also extended the time by an order dated 17.01.2013. Before expiry of the time granted by the court below, the tenant has filed M.P. No. 61 of 2013 seeking further extension of time by 20 days. Apart from filing applications seeking extension, even on 03.01.2013, the tenant has sent three demand drafts for Rs.10,00,000/- each and it was sent to the advocate on record, but he refused to receive it. Thereafter, it was sent by registered post with acknowledgment due on 03.01.2013 to the landlords. The landlords have also received the demand drafts but they did not encash it. Later on, the landlords, by letter dated 22.03.2013 stated that even though originally they did not want to encash the demand drafts, one of the landlords expressed his willingness to encash the demand drafts. A letter to that effect was sent by the landlords on 22.02.2013 thereby the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was given credit to the account of the tenant.

As far as M.P. No. 61 of 2013 in M.P. No. 364 of 2012 filed for extension of time by 20 days, it was taken up for hearing on 28.01.2013. The learned Rent Controller dismissed it on 28.01.2013 on the ground that in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for extension, it was merely stated that due to illness of the wife of the tenant during the second week of December 2012, the order could not be complied with, however, even thereafter, when time was extended till 17.01.2013 for making the payment, the tenant has not chosen to deposit the amount. As the Petition filed under Section 11 (4) of the Act filed by the landlords was dismissed for non-compliance of the conditional order, M.P. No. 364 of 2012 filed by the landlord to direct the tenant to deposit the difference amount was allowed. Subsequently, the R.C.A. No. 233 of 2011 itself was dismissed on the same day namely 28.01.2013. As against the order dated 28.01.2013, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

The learned counsel for the tenant/revision petitioner would contend that the Appellate Authority did not take note of the fact that the entire amount was deposited on 27.06.2013 itself i.e., before filing of C.R.P. No. 351 of 2012. In other words, after depositing the entire amount as per the fair rent proceedings, the tenant has filed C.R.P. No. 351 of 2012 before this Court. The tenant is also continuously paying the enhanced rent. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, there is no arrears of rent payable by the tenant but it was not considered by the court below.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submits that the Rent Control Original Petition filed by the landlords itself is not maintainable for the simple reason that the fair rent proceedings has not become final. Even though the Rent Control Appeal was dismissed, the copy application was filed and the copy was delayed before the court below due to loss of bundle and the fair rent proceedings shall be construed to have come to an end only on 01.03.2012 when C.R.P. No. 351 of 2012 was withdrawn. Therefore, the present Rent Control Original Petition filed by the landlord is not maintainable. The present Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P. No. 191 of 2010 ought not to have been entertained and the consequential orders passed in the Rent Control Appeal are not in accordance with law. In any event, taking into consideration the subsequent events whereby the tenant deposited the entire arrears amount as per the fair rent fixed, the Appellate Authority ought not to have dismissed the Rent Control Appeal.

In this context, the learned counsel for the tenant relied on the decision reported in (Mazda Ice Manufacturing Company by its Proprietor S.R. Mazda, Madras and another v. Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals by its Secretary C.A. Vasudevan, Madras) (2002) I MLJ 482 to contend that the fair rent proceedings has to be construed to have been concluded only on dismissal of C.R.P. No. 351 of 2012 filed by the tenant.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Motamarri Venkata Seshavataram v. Deata Sita) (1988) (2) SCC 208 to contend that when the tenant has given satisfactory explanation for not depositing the rent in time, such explanation can be accepted and the delay in depositing the rent can be condoned.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlords would contend that the landlords have filed R.C.O.P. No. 191 of 2010 only after the R.C.O.P. No. 2118 of 2003 filed by the landlords was allowed on 28.01.2005 and it was also affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 24.10.2009. In fact, the landlords have filed R.C.O.P. No. 191 of 2010 on 25.01.2010 i.e., three months after the dismissal of the Rent Control Appeals on 24.10.2009 preferred by the landlords as well as the tenants in R.C.A. Nos. 343 and 307 of 2005. According to the learned counsel for the landlords, pending R.C.O.P. No. 191 of 2010, the tenant has not taken any steps to file a Civil Revision Petition before this Court against the dismissal of R.C.A. No. 343 of 2005 filed by him. The tenant wilfully allowed it to become final. Thereafter, C.R.P. No. 251 of 2012 was filed by the tenant against the fair rent proceedings and withdrew it on 01.03.2012 and in the meantime, the R.C.O.P. No. 191 of 2010 filed by the landlords for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent was allowed on 22.01.2011. The tenant could have filed a Civil Revision Petition before this Court even without obtaining a certified copy of the order passed by the Appellate Authority and sought for dispensing with the same before this Court, but he has not chosen to do so. In any event, in view of the withdrawal of C.R.P. No. 251 of 2012 on 01.03.2012 by the tenant, he cannot be now heard to contend that the Rent Control Original Petition itself is not maintainable and it is premature. When once the tenant has withdrawn C.R.P. No. 251 of 2012, it is not open for him to contend that the Rent Control Original Petition filed by the landlords in R.C.O.P. No. 191 of 2010 is not maintainable. This Court time and again has held that finality of fair rent proceedings can be taken note of only till the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on the decision of this Court reported in (Girdharilal Chandak and Bros (HUF) rep. by its Kartha Mr. Girdharilal Chandak (died) and others v. S. Mehdi Ispahani and others) 2011 (5) CTC 252 as well as the decision reported in (T. Pramod Wilson and 3 others v. Dr. Hari Ramesh) 1999 (I) CTC 732 to contend that there is no bar for proceeding against the tenant for eviction on the ground of wilful default after the dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by him against the fair rent proceedings.

The learned counsel for the respondents, relying on the decision of this Court reported in (Vasantha Leela v. N. Vadivelu Chettiar) 1998 (III) CTC 467, which was also subsequently followed by this Court in (K. Muthu v. A. Mohammed Yusuf Khan and others) 2008 (1) Law Weekly 283, for the proposition that when litigation is pending between the parties, the tenant is expected to exercise diligence in payment of rent as proceedings are pending between the parties with reference to the property and his eviction from the property. Quoting the above passage, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that in this case, fair rent proceedings as well as eviction proceedings for having committed wilful default in payment of rent have been initiated by the respondents, while so, the revision petitioner ought to have exercised diligence in payment of rent. In Para No.9 of the decision of this court reported in Vasantha Leela''s case mentioned supra, it was held by this Court as under:-

"9. .....Therefore, it is clear from the above circumstances that the tenant ought to have been diligent in payment of the rent as proceedings have been pending between the parties with reference to the property and his eviction from the property. The tenant ought to have been careful and scrupulous in adhering to his duties as a tenant. The foremost duty of the tenant is to pay the rent in time. Therefore in the context of the litigations that went on between the parties any default committed by the tenant has to be construed as wilful default. The tenant was aware of the legal consequences of his omission to pay rent. Therefore, he ought to have been more careful. In spite of it, he has not chosen to pay the rent which would only indicate that he has been supinely indifferent and callous in attitude. Therefore any default committed by the tenant in this context can be nothing but wilful default within the meaning of the Act. There is no controversy between the parties that the rent till 01.11.1987 has been paid. It is also not disputed that the rent due from 01.11.1984 to 30.09.1987 i.e., rent for 35 months was due and payable by the tenant, towards the same the tenant has paid a sum of Rs.600/- on 09.02.1986, Rs.520 on 05.01.1988 and Rs.400 on 27.08.1988. A sum of Rs.2080 was also deposited by him into Court in 1988. The last payment was made only on 05.02.1990 in a sum of Rs.320/-. Thus, we find that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent from 01.11.1984. But he took his own time to make payment that too in driblets. In spite of the filing of the application for eviction he has not chosen to make payment of the entire sum due and payable by him. But he continued to pay in driblets and at his convenience. Therefore, in the context, this definitely amounts to wilful default. There is no acceptable explanation from the tenant for his failure or inability to pay the rent in time. He filed an application for deposit of rent in 1984. But later the application was closed. He did not choose to pay the rent regularly thereafter. Even after the filing of this application for eviction he has not chosen to pay the rent regularly. But allowed it to pile up and paid only small sums towards the same....."

Reliance was also made to the decision of this Court reported in (T. Pramod Wilson and 3 others v. Dr. Hari Ramesh) (1999 (1) CTC 732) for the proposition that mere deposit of arrears of rent by tenant pursuant to an order passed by the Controller or the Authority will not erase wilful default committed by the tenant. In fact, emphasis was laid on this decision that mere deposit of rent pursuant to an order under Section 11 (4) of the Rent Control Act without acceptable explanation for non-payment of rent will not erase the wilful default committed by him. In Para No.39 of the said decision, it was held as under:-

"39. ......But in the instant case, the conduct of the respondent-tenant is deliberate and wilful, as, even after filing of the eviction proceedings, he has not chosen to deposit the rent voluntarily till a direction was passed on 30.09.1988 in M.P. No. 1160 of 1988 filed under Section 11 (4) of the Act. Even after filing of the eviction proceedings, the respondent-tenant has chosen to resist the eviction proceedings by questioning the entitlement of the petitioners to collect the rent. In any event proviso to Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act would come to operate only in the event if the controller is satisfied that the tenant''s default to pay or tender rent was not wilful. But, when there are substantial and material evidence on record to show that the respondent-tenant had committed wilful default, he is not entitled even for the benefit conferred in the proviso to Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act."

The learned counsel for the respondents also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Sankaran Pillai (dead) by Lrs v. V.X. Venuguduswami and others) 1999 (III) CTC 5 to contend that mere payment of rent will not absolve the liability of the tenant because it is a continuous process and non-payment of rent even for a few months will entitle the landlord to seek for eviction.

I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed. The tenant suffered an order at the hands of the learned Rent Controller fixing fair rent for the petition mentioned premises and it was also affirmed by the Appellate Authority in the appeal preferred by the tenant as well as the landlords. This is not in dispute. It is also an admitted fact that the petition mentioned premises was let out to the tenant for carrying on non-residential business. The fair rent petition in R.C.O.P. No. 2118 of 2003 was filed by the landlords in the year 2003 in which an order, fixing the fair rent was passed on 28.01.2005. The learned Rent Controller, taking note of the report of an Engineer as well as the admission of the tenant himself that the fair rent will be Rs.51,069/- per month, fixed the fair rent at the rate of Rs.81,463/- even though the landlords claimed fair rent at Rs.1,52,220.23 per month. As against the order dated 28.01.2005, landlords have also filed R.C.A. No. 307 of 2005 and the tenant preferred R.C.A. No. 343 of 2005. Both the Rent Control Appeals were taken up together and by an order dated 24.10.2009, the Appellate Authority dismissed the same. After dismissal of the Rent Control Appeals on 24.10.2009, the landlords awaited for three months and thereafter filed R.C.O.P. No. 191 of 2010 before the learned Rent Controller to evict the tenant for having committed wilful default in payment of the different in rent as well as the fair rent fixed by the Rent Controller. This Rent Control Original Petition was contested by the tenant. It is also an admitted fact that during the relevant period, even though the tenant filed a copy application for getting the copy of the order dated 24.10.2009 passed in R.C.A. No. 343 of 2005, it was stated that the case bundle was lost and the copy of the order dated 24.10.2009 was delivered only on 22.12.2011, with the result, the tenant could file the C.R.P. No. 351 of 2012 before this Court only on 12.01.2012.

In the interregnum, the tenant did not take any steps to deposit the rental amount or even the admitted rent of Rs.50,000/- which he agreed as reasonable before the Rent Controller. In fact, the tenant only contested the Rent Control Original Petition filed by the landlord for fixation of fair rent. Had he taken some steps during the relevant period before filing C.R.P. (NPD) No. 351 of 2012, this Court would conclude that he had shown some bona fide. But in the present case, nothing has prevented the tenant to pay the admitted rent during the interregnum without waiting for filing CRP (NPD) No. 351 of 2012 and therefore this Court is unable to arrive at any such conclusion. On the other hand, the tenant has contested the RCOP No. 191 of 2010 filed by the landlords on the grounds that it is not maintainable inasmuch as the fair rent proceedings have not been concluded. Thereafter, the tenant has also filed R.C.A. No. 233 of 2011 in which, due to non-payment of the rent, the landlords were constrained to file two petitions under Section 11 (4) of the Act namely M.P. No. 244 of 2011 and M.P. No. 364 of 2012 for a direction to the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent. On those petitions the Court below directed the tenant to deposit the rental arrears and also granted extension of time for him to deposit the amount. In the meanwhile, the tenant has filed C.R.P. (NPD) No. 351 of 2012 before this Court challenging the fair rent proceedings and ultimately withdrew it on 01.03.2012. In the order dated 01.03.2012 in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 351 of 2012, this Court has not given any liberty to the tenant to pursue his remedy but merely it was recorded that the tenant intends to withdraw the Civil Revision Petition and therefore it is dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, by virtue of the order dated 01.03.2012 in CRP (NPD) No. 351 of 2012, the fair rent proceedings reached a finality.

Now, let us analyse the conduct of the tenant. The tenant, having withdrawn C.R.P. (NPD) No. 351 of 2012 on 01.03.2012 and also suffered an order at the hands of the Appellate Authority directing him to deposit the arrears of rent, he has chosen to file extension petitions. In fact, the first petition under Section 11 (4) of the Act was filed by the landlords in M.P. No. 244 of 2011 in R.C.A. No. 233 of 2011 in which, by an order dated 21.11.2011, a direction was issued by the Appellate Authority to deposit Rs.21,71,624/-. The amount of Rs.21,71,624/- was also deposited by the tenant, of course, after obtaining extension of time. Subsequently, since the tenant did not deposit the rent, the landlords have filed the second M.P. No. 364 of 2012 in R.C.A. No. 233 of 2011 in which an order was passed to deposit the rent on or before 02.01.2013. The tenant did not pay the amount before that date but filed M.P. No. 12 of 2013 seeking extension of time by two weeks and it was also granted. A second petition seeking extension of time was filed by the tenant in M.P. No. 61 of 2013 seeking 20 days time for depositing the amount. The second petition for extension of time was not entertained but dismissed by Appellate Authority.

The duty of the tenant to pay the rent month after month is a statutory obligation, which the tenant has failed to discharge. Under law, he is liable to pay the entire amount towards rent in time, but he did not do so. He made the landlords to approach the Appellate authority twice with petitions under Section 11 (4) of the Act. The Petitions filed under Section 11 (4) of the Act as well as the Rent Control Appeal filed by the tenant have been dismissed by a common order dated 28.01.2013 against which the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the tenant.

It is true that the tenant has paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs by means of demand draft during the pendency of the proceedings and by relying upon the payment of such amount, the tenant seeks to condone his act of non depositing the rent in time. This Court could have considered the plight of the tenant for not paying the rent in time and the subsequent payment of the rental amount, however, this Court is unable to do so because he did not take any steps during the relevant period to deposit the rental amount. In fact, on 05.12.2012, in the second petition under Section 11 (4) of the Act filed by the landlords in M.P. No. 364 of 2012, an order was passed by the Appellate Authority directing him to deposit the rental arrears on or before 02.01.2013. That was not complied with by the tenant and he has only filed two Petitions in M.P. Nos. 12 of 2013 and 61 of 2013 seeking extension of time for depositing the amount.

Be that as it may, now it has to be analysed as to whether R.C.O.P. No. 191 of 2010 filed by the landlords for eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent is not maintainable, as contended by the tenant, inasmuch as the fair rent proceedings have not been concluded by then. In this context, the learned counsel for the landlords relied on the decision reported in (Girdharilal Chandak and Bros (HUF) rep. by its Kartha Mr. Girdharilal Chandak (died) and others v. S. Mehdi Ispahani and others) 2011 (5) CTC 252 wherein this Court held that an appeal by itself operate as stay of proceedings under decree or order appealed from except so far Appellate Authority may order. In the absence of stay of such proceedings, decree or order appealed from, the order can be executed. In Para Nos. 20 and 21, it was held as follows:-

"20. In so far as the second contention is concerned, it is no doubt true that the civil revision petitions arising out of the fixation of fair rent, are still pending on the file of this Court. But the mere pendency of a revision petition could not mean that the orders of both the Courts below are inexecutable. Suppose the petitioner had vacated the place and gone out, the only remedy open to the landlord who obtained orders fixing the fair rent, would be to file a civil suit for recovery of money. If a civil suit for recovery of money had been filed, it may be open to the petitioner to contend that the cause of action for filing the suit had not yet arisen on account of the fact that the fair rent proceedings had not attained finality. But the cause of action for a landlord to file a suit for recovery of the fair rent, would stand on a different footing than his right to enforce the order fixing the fair rent, by taking recourse to the other provisions of the Act, viz., petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default. A person who suffered an order fixing the fair rent, has only one remedy viz., that of filing an appeal. But a person who obtains order fixing the fair rent, has multiple remedies viz., (i) to seek recovery of money by filing a civil suit or (ii) to seek eviction on the ground of wilful default. Both these remedies stand on separate footing. So long as there is no stay of the order fixing the fair rent and so long as the petitioner did not want or did not seek a stay of the order fixing the fair rent, it is not open to him to contend that the proceedings had not attained finality and that therefore he was not obliged to pay the fair rent fixed.

As a matter of fact, the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, enables the Appellate Authority under Section 23 (2) to grant stay of further proceedings pending decision on the appeal. There is no similar provision under Section 25. What is worse is the fact that under Section 23(4), the decision of the Appellate Authority is final and is not liable to be called in question in any Court of Law, except as provided in Section 25. Therefore, finality is reached in every proceeding under the Act, the moment an order is passed by the Appellate Authority. But it is made subject to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, in the absence of a stay, by this Court in a revision, the order of the Appellate Authority becomes final until it is modified or set aside by this Court. Moreover, Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974, prescribes the procedure for the disposal of the applications. The third proviso to sub Rule (3) of Rule 12, states that whenever an application for setting aside an ex parte order is received for the first time, all execution proceedings would stand stayed till the disposal of that application. In other words, the Act contains one provision for stay under Section 23 (2), subject to the discretion of the Appellate Authority. The Rules contain one provision for automatic stay of execution, under the third proviso to Rule 12(3). Therefore, the construction that the admission of a revision, without any order of stay, would automatically take away the finality conferred under Section 23 (4) to an order of the Appellate Authority, would do violence to the Act and the Rules. Hence, the second contention is also unacceptable.

(emphasis supplied)"

I respectfully concur with my learned Brother who discussed in detail regarding the legal position that mere admission of a revision, without any order of stay, would not automatically take away the finality conferred under Section 23 (4) to an order of the Appellate Authority. In the above decision, this Court followed the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 CTC 53 (SC) wherein it was held that under Delhi Rent Control Act, it is well settled that mere preferring of an appeal does not operate as stay of proceedings under decree or order appealed from. Applying the ratio laid down in the above decisions to this case, the judgment in R.C.A. No. 343 of 2005 filed by the tenant was rendered on 24.10.2009 and there was no stay of the Judgment till the tenant filed C.R.P. (NPD) No. 351 of 2012 before this Court on 12.01.2012. In those circumstances, the landlords, after having waited for three months from the date of judgment in R.C.A. Nos. 343 and 307 of 2005, have filed R.C.O.P. No. 191 of 2010 for eviction of the tenant on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent. No doubt, it is claimed by the tenant that he did not receive the certified copy of the judgment passed in R.C.A. Nos. 343 and 307 of 2005 in time due to loss of the case bundle before the Appellate Court but that will not be a bar or prevent him from paying the admitted amount of rent or such a ground raised by him will not absolve him of his liability to pay the rent belatedly as per his choice. Consequently, it cannot be contended by the tenant that the Rent Control Original Petition No. 191 of 2010 filed by the landlords is not maintainable and such a plea raised by the tenant is hereby rejected.

The learned counsel for the landlords have also relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Sankaran Pillai (dead) by Lrs v. V.X. Venuuguduswami and others) 1999 (III) CTC 5 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held that subsequent deposit of arrears of rent in order to fulfil the condition for preferring an appeal was not a bona fide deposit. The Honourable Supreme Court, while dealing with the plea of sufficient cause raised by the tenant, held in para Nos. 2 and 3 as follows:-

"2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the facts that the tenant after having entered into an agreement with the erstwhile owner of the building paid considerable amount of money towards part performance of the agreement and his further filing of suit in the Civil Court for specific performance of the agreement constituted sufficient cause under Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act for non-depositing the arrears of rent within time, as well as monthly rent which became due in respect of building and, therefore, this Court may, after condoning the delay, permit the appellant to deposit the entire arrears of rent and remand the matter to the Rent Controller to enable the appellant to contest the application filed by the landlord for his eviction from the premises on the ground of default in payment of rent. In order to appreciate the argument of learned counsel, it is necessary to look into the relevant provisions of Section 11 of the Act. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) of the Act runs as under :

"11 (1) No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under section 10 shall be entitled to contest the application before the Controller under that section, or to prefer any appeal under section 23 against any order made by the Controller on the application unless he has paid or pays to the landlord, or deposits with the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of the building upto the date of payment or deposit, and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building until the termination of the proceedings before the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be.

(2) The deposit of rent under sub-section (1) shall be made within the time and in the manner prescribed.

(4) If any tenant fails to pay or to 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."

A Perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that where an application for eviction has been filed against a tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent the tenant is required (i) to deposit all the arrears of rent due in respect of the building with the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be; (ii) the tenant is further required to pay or deposit the rent which may subsequently fall due in respect of the building until the termination of the proceedings; (iii) the said deposit of rent is required to be paid or deposited within time provided and in the manner prescribed; and (iv) if the deposit of rent is not made, the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all proceedings and pass an order of eviction against the tenant. It is true that the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, if the tenant shows sufficient cause may permit the tenant to contest the application filed by the landlord for his eviction. The question that is required to be seen is, what does the expression sufficient cause means in sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act? It is no doubt true that the expression sufficient cause has to be liberally construed to do substantial injustice between the parties. But the expression sufficient cause necessarily implies an element of sincerity, bona fide, honesty and reasonableness. It has to be shown by the tenant who has not deposited the rent within time, as directed by the Controller, that non-deposit of the rent was beyond his control and there was no element of negligence or inaction or lack of bona fides on his part in not depositing the rent within time. Viewed in this light, what we find in the present case is, that the tenant was required to deposit the rent by 3.8.1990. But the arrears of rent were not deposited by that date. On 7.8.1990, when the order of eviction was passed, no application was moved by the tenant before the Rent Controller for revoking the order striking out defence as he could not deposit the arrears of rent on account of reasons beyond his control. On the contrary, the tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant before the Rent Controller. The tenants subsequent deposit of the arrears of rent before the appellate authority being requirement of law for hearing the appeal on merits, cannot be treated as bona fide deposit. Further, the tenant did not deposit the month to month rent as required under section 11(1) of the Act and reiterated his stand that he is a landlord and not a tenant of the premises in dispute. Even before the High Court it was not the case of the tenant that under some bona fide mistake he could not deposit the arrears and month to month rent and, therefore, delay may be condoned. It appears that, after the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit filed by the tenant for specific performance of the Agreement, the tenant has now come forward with a plea that since he under mistaken belief did not deposit arrears and month to month rent and, therefore, default may be condoned. As noticed earlier, this plea of non-depositing of arrears of rent on account of sufficient cause was not a case set up by the tenant before the Rent Controller, the appellate authority and the High Court. The tenants consistent stand was that he was not required under law to deposit any arrears of rent and month to month rent as he himself was the landlord of the premises. This plea of the tenant now advanced is an afterthought and is not bona fide and, therefore, we do not find it to constitute sufficient cause as to condone the non-deposit of arrears and also month to month rent which was required to be deposited by the tenant. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants."

Applying the ratio laid down in the above decision to the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the tenant has shown any sufficient cause for not depositing the rental arrears from time to time and therefore, the tenant cannot be granted any relief by this Court.

The learned counsel for the tenant/revision petitioner relied on the decision reported in (Motamarri Venkata Seshavataram v. Deata Sita) (1988) (2) SCC 208 to contend that when the tenant has given satisfactory explanation for not depositing the rent in time, such explanation can be accepted and the delay in depositing the rent can be condoned. No doubt, the term sufficient cause has to be construed liberally to advance the cause of justice but at the same time, if there is no satisfactory explanation offered by the tenant for not depositing the rent in time, this Court cannot adopt a liberal approach. In this case, as mentioned above, there is no cause shown by the tenant for not depositing the rent from 24.10.2009, the date on which R.C.A. Nos. 343 and 307 of 2005 were dismissed till 21.01.2012, the date on which he filed C.R.P. (NPD) No. 351 of 2012 before this Court. Therefore, the decision relied on by the counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to this case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision reported in (Janakiraman v. Umadevi and others) 1996 (1) CTC 196 : 1996 (I) MLJ 241 to contend that finality of fixation of fair rent will end only when the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of by this Court under Section 151 of CPC or under Article 227 of The Constitution of India. Therefore, according to the counsel for the tenant/revision petitioner, the fair rent proceedings in this case have been concluded only when the tenant withdrew the C.R.P. (NPD) No. 351 of 2012 filed before this Court on 01.03.2012 and therefore, the RCOP No. 191 of 2010 filed by the landlords is not maintainable. As mentioned earlier, when there is no stay of further proceedings in the Rent Control Appeal by means of an appeal or revision, there is no embargo for the landlord to file the Rent Control Original Petition for eviction of the tenant, especially when the tenant did not pay the rent for a long time. Therefore, this decision relied on by the counsel for the revision petitioner cannot be made applicable to this case.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on the decision of this Court reported in (Nelson and other v. P. Ranganathan Mudaliar) (1995) (I) CTC 446 for the proposition that even though the courts below have rendered a concurrent finding, it can be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act. It is no doubt true that even though the there is a concurrent decision of the Courts below, it can be interfered with by this Court unless such decision is perverse or illegal. In this case, I do not find any reason to exercise the jurisdiction conferred under Section 25 of the Act to interfere with the well considered decision of the Courts below nor they can be termed as perverse.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (J. Visalakshmi Ammal v. T.B. Sathyanarayana) 1996 2 Law Weekly 849 for the proposition that the difference of the amount between the fair rent fixed and the agreed rent is the arrears of rent for the building and it becomes payable when the order fixing the fair rent becomes final and it shall be payable within 15 days from the last day of the tenancy month. It was further held that on such failure, it would be open to the landlord to institute a proceeding for eviction on the ground falling under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act and it is not necessary for the landlord to go to the Civil Court to recover such arrears of rent. By relying on this decision, the learned counsel for the tenant would contend that after dismissal of the R.C.A. Nos. 343 and 347 of 2005 on 24.10.2009, the landlords did not issue any notice and therefore they cannot, as a matter of fact, claim the arrears amount. He would further argue that after disposal of the CRP (NPD) No. 351 of 2012 on 01.03.2012, the landlords ought to have issued notice to the tenant calling upon him to pay the rental arrears within 15 days and in the absence of the same, the RCOP No. 191 of 2010 is not maintainable. As discussed earlier, RCA Nos. 343 and 307 of 2005 were dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 24.10.2009 and after lapse of two years, the tenant has filed CRP (NPD) No. 351 of 2012 before this Court on 12.01.2012 and got it withdrawn on 01.03.2012. In the interregnum period, the tenant admittedly did not pay the rental amount. According to the tenant, the copy of the judgment in RCA Nos. 343 and 307 of 2005 could not be made available due to loss of case bundle and therefore, immediately after obtaining it, the CRP (NPD) No. 351 of 2012 was filed on 12.01.2012. Even though the tenant has offered explanation for not filing CRP (NPD) No. 351 of 2012 in time, he did not come forward with any explanation as to what prevented him to pay the rent during the interregnum period. It is not the case of the tenant that he made attempts to pay the rent, but the landlords did not receive. Further, the tenant could have filed a Civil Revision Petition without a certified copy of the judgment and decree in RCA Nos. 343 and 307 of 2005 and seek for dispensing with the production of the same. The delay of around 2 years in filing the CRP (NPD) No. 351 of 2012 and the non-payment of the rent during that period by the tenant is fatal to his case and definitely it cannot be termed as a bona fide. Under those circumstances, I am of the view that the tenant is guilty of nonpayment of rent and such non-payment is wilful and wanton. Under those circumstances, I have no hesitation to confirm the orders, which are impugned in these Civil Revision Petitions.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the tenant/revision petitioner prayed this Court to grant sufficient time to enable the tenant/revision petitioner to vacate and handover vacant possession of the property to the landlord especially when he is running a non-residential business for quite some time. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also prayed this Court to grant time by taking note of the fact that as on date, there is no arrears of rent payable by him. The learned counsel for the landlords/respondents has no objection is granting a reasonable time to the tenant for vacating and handing over the vacant possession to the landlords. Taking into consideration of such request made by the counsel for the revision petitioner and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court hereby grants time to the tenant to vacate and handover vacant possession of the petition mentioned premises to the landlords within a period of seven months.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.