K.V.S. Nagarajan vs G.V. Shyamsundar and G.S. Kala

G. Rajasuria, J.—Inveighing the order dated 24.06.2010 passed in MP No. 417 of 2009 in RCA No. 184 of 2009 by the VIII Court of

Small Causes, Chennai, this civil revision petition is focussed.

Heard both sides.

Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:

The respondents herein filed RCOP No. 327 of 2008 before the learned Rent Controller on the ground of willful default on the part of the tenant in

paying the rent. After contest, the learned Rent Controller ordered eviction as against which the tenant preferred RCA No. 184 of 2009, which is

now pending before the appellate authority. While so, the landlords filed application u/s 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent

Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'']. In that the appellate authority passed the impugned order directing the tenant to pay the

arrears of rent within the specified date. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision has been filed on various grounds.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant reiterating the grounds of revision would put forth and set forth his arguments thus:

The tenant separately filed one RCOP No. 2068 of 2006 invoking Section 8(5) of the Act and has been depositing the rent. While so, the learned

appellate authority was not justified in passing an order ignoring such deposit in Court, and directing the revision petitioner to deposit once again

the said amount in the Court within the date fixed. According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, there cannot be any double

payment.

Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents/landlords would submit that the revision petitioner despite knowing the respondents long

ago, even anterior to the filing of RCOP No. 2068 of 2006, as owners of the demised premises, deliberately in order to put them in difficulty and

discomfiture, did choose to deposit the rents in that manner and he has to withdraw that amount from the Court deposit and pay it to the

respondents herein.

On hearing the submissions from the side of the learned Counsel for the respondents, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would make a

categorical submission that this Court might permit him to withdraw the amount which he deposited all along in RCOP No. 2068 of 2006 and pay

the same to the respondents herein and that he would comply with the same aptly without prejudice to the tenant''s contention that the tenant did

not commit any default in payment of rent. Hence in view of the submissions made on ether side, I would like to dispose of the revision petition by

passing the following order:

The revision petitioner herein is permitted to withdraw the amounts so far deposited by him in RCOP No. 2068 of 2006 from the Court concerned

and pay the same in the form of Demand Draft to the respondents herein within a period of one week after withdrawal of the amount. Such

application for withdrawal shall be filed within a week. The Rent Control Court which is having that amount in the Court deposit in RCOP No.

2068 of 2006 shall see that the amount is released in favour of the revision petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of the

application without any further notice to any of the parties in RCOP No. 2068 of 2006 as according to both side Advocates herein there is no rival

claim over it.

The learned Counsel for the respondents would make an extempore submission that a time limit may be fixed for the disposal of the RCA. I

could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, the appellate authority is directed to

dispose the RCA within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, the order of the lower Court stands modified. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.