Mrs. Sulochana vs Smt. R. Pangajam

Mr. R.S. Ramanathan, J.—Tenant is the revision petitioner. 2. The revision petitioner filed application under section 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 3. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner that one Rukmani Ammal was collecting rent from her till 1986 and thereafter, her son-in-law Devaraj was collecting rent till 1990 and after the death of Devaraj, one Ravi was collecting rent and Rukmani Ammal died in the year 1993 and till August 1997, the rent was paid to Ravi and the respondents herein are total strangers and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and the respondents have not demanded the rent from the petitioner and the respondents have to prove their ownership and therefore, she requested Ravi to set right the dispute and thereafter, he has not come to receive the rent and though she was ready to pay the rent from September 1997, the delay in payment of rent cannot be termed as wilful and filed application under section 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act seeking permission of the Rent Controller to deposit the rent from September 1997 to December 1998. Both the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority held that the petition filed under section 9(3) is not maintainable and the contention of the tenant that she was not able to find out the true owner of the property cannot be accepted and dismissed the application. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that under the provisions of section 9(3) of the Rent Control Act, in case of doubt and dispute regarding ownership of the property, the tenant can deposit the rent before the authority as prescribed under the Act and admittedly, no authority has been prescribed before whom the rent has to be deposited and therefore, the tenant has no other option to file the application before the Rent Controller seeking permission of the Rent Controller to deposit the rent and that was not properly appreciated. 5. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. It is the specific case of the revision petitioner that she was paying rent originally to Rukmani Ammal and thereafter to Devaraj and lastly to Ravi. It is also her case that till August 1997, Ravi was collecting rent and thereafter, he has not come to collect the rent. It is also admitted by her that a case was pending between the owners for partition and she is aware of the same. She also admitted receipt of notice issued by the respondents calling upon her to pay the arrears of rent. Though in the notice, the respondents have not stated as to how they derived title over the suit property, even after receipt of notice, no attempt was made by the revision petitioner to enquire about the true owner and without making such attempt she filed application to deposit the rent after the respondents filed application for eviction. Further, the conduct of the revision petitioner in resorting to file application under section 9(3) cannot be said to be bona fide and the petition is also not maintainable under section 9(3) of the Act. Section 9 reads as follows:-

"9(1) Where the address of the landlord or his authorised agent is not known to the tenant, he may deposit the rent lawfully payable to the landlord in respect of the building, before the Controller in such manner as may be prescribed, and continue to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, before the Controller and in the same manner until the address of the landlord or his authorised agent becomes known to the tenant. (2) The amount deposited under sub-section (3) or under sub-section (5) of section 8, or under sub-section (1) of this section may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the person held by the Controller to be entitled to the amount on application made by such person to the Controller in that behalf. (3) Where any bona fide doubt or dispute arises as to the person who is entitled to receive the rent for any building, the tenant may deposit such rent before such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed and shall report to the Controller the circumstances under which such deposit was made by him, and may continue to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building before the same authority and in the same manner until the doubt is removed or the dispute is settled by the decision of a competent Court or by a settlement between the parties or until the Controller makes an order under clause (b) of sub-section (4), as the case may be. (4)(a) The Controller to whom a report is made under sub-section(3) shall, if satisfied that a bona fide doubt or dispute exists in the matter, direct that, pending removal of the doubt or settlement of the dispute as aforesaid, the deposit be held by the authority concerned. (b) If the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall forthwith order payment of the amount deposited to the landlord. (5) Where the Controller passes an order under clause (a) of sub-section(4), any amount deposited under sub-section(3) may be withdrawn only by the person who is declared by a competent Court to be entitled thereto, or in case the doubt or dispute is removed by a settlement between the parties, only by the person who is held by the Controller to be entitled to the amount or amounts in accordance with such settlement." 6. As per section 9(1) where the address of the landlord or his authorised agent is not known to the tenant, he may deposit the rent before the Rent Controller. In this case, it cannot be stated that the case of the revision petitioner is covered under section 9(1) of the Act. As stated supra, according to the tenant, one Ravi was collecting rent and the tenant has not called upon Ravi to collect the rent even after receipt of notice from the respondent and the said Ravi was also not made as a party to the proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.44 of 1999. 7. As per section 9(3) whenever a bona fide dispute arises or doubt arises as to the person who is entitled to receive rent, the tenant may deposit such rent before such authority. As per section 9(3) of the Act, the amount can be deposited before the Authority and after deposit of rent before the authority, a report has to be made by the party or by person who filed that application to the Rent Controller and on such report being filed, the Rent Controller may direct that the deposit to be continued to be made before the authority or the deposit can be held by the authority concerned. 8. Therefore, a question arises whether any bona fide dispute or doubt arises regarding the entitlement of the respondents to collect the rent. As stated supra, even after receipt of the notice from the respondents, no attempt was made by the revision petitioner to enquire Mr. Ravi, to whom the rent was being paid according to the revision petitioner, till August 1997, about the claim of the respondents and she filed application only against the respondents and she has not impleaded the said Ravi, who, according to her, was receiving rent till August 1997. 9. If really, the revision petitioner had entertained a bona fide doubt regarding the title of the respondents to the property, she would have definitely called upon the respondents to explain their source of title or would have asked Mr. Ravi about the claim made by the respondents. Admittedly, she has not done anything and she has also admitted that she was aware of the partition suit pending between the parties and also the suit filed by the respondents restraining Ravi and others from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the property. 10. Further, the revision petitioner has also not resorted to the procedure contemplated under section 9 of the Rent Control Act, when the landlords, according to her, did not come forward to collect the rent. Considering the all these aspects, both the courts below have rightly held that the application filed by the revision petitioner under section 9(3) is not maintainable and dismissed the same and I do not find any infirmity in the concurrent findings of the courts below. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. C.R.P. Dismissed - No Costs - M.P. Dismissed.