M/s Guru Associates and Lalithakumar Jain vs B.A. Balasubramaniam

S.S. Subramani, J.—In all these revision petitions, tenants are the revision petitioners. Eviction petition was filed by landlord on the ground

that tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent. According to the landlord, from January 1994 to October 1994, tenant has not paid

rent at the rate of Rs. 1,100/- per month. As per the order dated 1.11.96, Rent Controller ordered eviction. Three months time was given to

tenant to vacate the building.

Against the order of eviction, tenant preferred R.C.A. No. 11 of 1997. Pending appeal, landlord filed application in M.P. No. 763 of 1997 on

the ground that tenant has not paid rent from February 1997 to October 1997 and there must be a direction asking tenant to deposit rent in court

and if he fails to do so stop further proceedings in appeal. A counter statement was filed by tenant stating that the application is lacking in bona

fides and his counsel was all along ready and willing to make payment but nobody has received the amount and even now he is ready to deposit

the rent. It is seen that landlord filed application in November 1997 and tenant filed counter on 31.8.1998.

On 16.1.1999, tenant paid a sum of Rs. 7,700/-. Landlord filed a memo on 7.9.1999 stating that for the rent from February, 1997 to October,

1997 an amount of Rs. 9,900/- is due and tenant has paid a sum of Rs. 7,700/- and he further alleged that rent upto July 1998 alone was paid.

Landlord further said that from August 1998, rent are in arrears and a sum Rs. 13,200/- is due towards rent. Appellate authority passed an order

on M.P. No. 763 of 1997 on 21.9.1999. Appellate Authority held that the statement by landlord is correct and tenant was directed to pay rent

that has accrued till then, i.e., for a period of 13 months and he was directed to pay Rs. 14,300/- on or before 29.9.1999. It is against the said

order C.R.P. No. 3685 of 1999 is filed.

Since the amount is not deposited, appellate authority stopped further proceedings as per dated 30.9.1999 and the same is challenged in C.R.P.

No. 3684 of 1999.

On 30.9.1999, appellate authority also dismissed the appeal holding that tenant is wilful defaulter. Against the said decision, C.R.P. No. 3683 of

1999 is filed.

Notice of motion was ordered and learned counsel for respondent also entered appearance.

I heard the learned counsel on both sides.

An order of eviction is passed on the ground that tenant has wilfully defaulted in payment of rent. Pending appeal when application u/s 11(4)

was filed only explanation offered by tenant was that when he was prepared to pay rent, nobody was there to receive the same. Even though such

offer was made, totally payment was made on 16.1.1999 and that too only a part payment. Out of Rs. 9,900/- only Rs. 7,700/- was paid.

Landlord was, therefore, compelled to file a memo on 7.9.1999 that the rent was still in arrear and as on August 1999, a sum of Rs. 13,200/- was

due. By that time the order was passed on 21.9.1999, amount again swelled to Rs. 14,300/-. Contention of tenant in all these revision petitions

that when he has paid the rent as claimed in M.P. No. 763 of 1997 as per the direction of appellate authority, asking him to deposit further sum of

Rs. 14,300/- is not correct.

I do not Find any merit in the said submission.

u/s 11(1) of the Act, it is the duty of the tenant to deposit all arrears of rent due in respect of the building upto the date of payment or deposit

and continue to pay or to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building until the termination of the proceeding

before the Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, Sub-section (4) of Section 11 says, if any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the

rent as aforesaid, the Controller or 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.

The purpose of application u/s 11(4) is only to remind the tenant that he has not paid rent. Merely because, landlord said that on the date of

application, rent for particular period is due, it cannot be said that when the amount as stated in the petition is paid, the obligation ceased to exist.

Statutory duty is that he must continue to deposit rent and when it becomes due, even without any application. In this case, when M.P. No. 763 of

1999 was filed rent for October 1997 was alone due. Even that amount was not paid in full and by that time, final order was passed subsequent

arrears also become due. Appellate Authority was, therefore, justified in directing tenant to deposit entire arrears as was then due. Admittedly

tenant did not deposit the rent. Counsel submitted that after the order, he has deposited entire rent and as on this date, there is no arrears and,

therefore, he may be given an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

I do not find any merit in the submission especially in view of the recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (1999) 4 Law

Reports of India 354 (Sankaran Pillai (deceased) Irs. v. V.P. Venuguduswami). In that case, their lordships considered the scope of Section 11(1)

& (4) of the Act. After extracting the statutory provisions, it is held thus,

A perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that where an application for eviction has been filed against the 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 the paid or deposited within the 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 proceeding 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 the expression ''sufficient cause'' mean in sub-s. (4) of S. 11 of the Act ? It is no doubt

true that the expression ''sufficient cause'' has to be liberally construed to do substantial justice between the parties. But the expression ''sufficient

cause'' necessarily implies an element of sincerity, bona fide, and reasonableness. It has to be shown by the tenant who has not deposited the rent

within time has 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 3rd August, 1998. But the arrears of rent were not deposited by that date. On 7th August 1999, when the order of

the 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 the requirement of law for

hearing the appeal on merits, cannot be treated as bona fide deposit...

(emphasis supplied)

In the case also tenant did not move any application before appellate authority, nor be explained any cause for non-depositing rent as directed.

When no explanation is offered by tenant for non-deposit of rent as directed consequence u/s 11(4) has to follow. It is not the case of tenant that

the amount calculated by appellate authority is not correct. Only contention is that since he has deposited rent for October 1997, M.P. No. 763 of

1997 ought to have been dismissed as infructuous and no order should have been passed therein. Law is well settled that court has to pass orders

taking into consideration the subsequent events also and asking landlord to file application u/s 11(4) every month is not legislative mandate. Even

though application is filed for particular period, statutory obligation of tenant is that he must continue to deposit rent as and when it is due and that

also will be taken into consideration by appellate authority while passing order u/s 11 (4) of the Act. In the result the revision petitions are without

merit and consequently all the revision petitions dismissed. No costs. C.M.P. No. 20704 of 1999 is also dismissed.

After the order was pronounced, learned counsel for petitioners sought time to vacate the premises. Taking into consideration the fact that the

petitioners are doing business in the demised premises. I am granting time till 15.4.2000 for vacating the premises, on condition that they should file

an affidavit of undertaking before this court within a week from today that they will vacate the premises, within the time granted, that they will not

allow any third party to occupy the same and that they will handover vacant possession to the landlord, and they should also pay to the landlord all

rental arrears, if any, within the time stipulated. If any of these conditions is violated, landlord is entitled to recover possession as if no time was

granted.