Venkata Subba Reddiar vs T. Kannan alias Devarassu and Another

S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.—The revision petitioner in all the revisions is the landlord in H.R.C.O.P. Nos. 32, 30, 31, 33 and 34 of 2002

on the file of the Rent Controller, Pondicherry. All the revisions have been filed against the judgments and decrees dated 24.4.2002 in R.C.A.

Nos. 11, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry in reversing the orders of the Rent Controller, who

refused to permit the first respondent/tenant for deposit of rent into Court, by allowing all the appeals. The landlord aggrieved against such

judgments and decrees filed these revisions.

The first respondent in all the revisions have filed the Rent Control Original Petitions for deposit of rent u/s 8(5) of the Pondicherry Buildings

(Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ""the Act"") claiming that they became tenants under the original owner Ramakrishna

Reddiar, who is the father of the revision petitioner and husband of the second respondent herein and on the death of Ramakrishna Reddiar, the

rent was paid to the revision petitioner and the second respondent herein and since they refused to receive the rent in the month of January, 2000,

the tenants, viz., the first respondent in all the revisions sent the rent by money order and the same was refused. Then the tenants sent lawyer notice

dated 14.3.2000 followed by another notice dated 21.3.2000 calling upon the revision petitioner to furnish bank account so as to enable the

tenants to deposit the rent and since the bank account was not furnished, the first respondent filed H.R.C.O.P. Nos. 32, 30, 31, 33 and 34 of

2000 respectively against the revision petitioner and his mother, the second respondent herein.

All the Rent Control Original Petitions were contested by the landlord, viz., the revision petitioner and his mother, who also supported the case

of the revision petitioner stating that she is willing to receive half share of the rent and also prepared to issue receipt and she did not refuse to

receive rent.

The learned Rent Controller considering the evidence adduced on either side oral and documentary accepted the case of the landlord/revision

petitioner and the landlady/second respondent and finding that prescribed procedure has not been followed, in the tenants not sending the rent by

way of money order before filing Rent Control Original Petitions for deposit of rent in Court after causing the lawyer notice to specify the bank

account so as to deposit the rent in the bank account, which was not replied and hence the said procedure is against law, dismissed all the Rent

Control Original Petitions. However, in the appeals R.C.A. Nos. 11, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of 2002, the Rent Control Appellate Authority stating that it

is only a technical mistake and not a deliberate or wanton act on the part of the tenants as enunciated u/s 8 of the Act, allowed all the Rent Control

Appeals. The judgments are under challenge in these revisions.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/landlord and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/tenant in all

the revisions.

Though all the revisions arise out of separate judgments, since the fact and law are similar, all the revision petitions are disposed by this common

order.

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner in all the revisions vehemently contended that since the procedures have not been followed strictly

as contemplated u/s 8 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the permission granted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority

for depositing of rent into Court is improper and as such, such orders have to be set aside. In support of such contention, the learned counsel relied

on the following decisions:

(1) Padmavathi Ammal v. Gopal, C.R.P. No. 362 of 1987, rendered by this Court on 12.7.1994, in which this Court held that the petition for

depositing the rent into Court is not maintainable since no step was taken to send the same by money order before filing such petition seeking

permission to deposit the rent u/s 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

(2) Abdul Fatha and another Vs. Villayudham and another, , in which this Court held that the tenant has to take steps one after another as laid

down in the procedure and then only the tenant can come to Court u/s 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and that the

tenant cannot jump procedural step in Section 8 of the Act.

(3) E. Palanisamy Vs. Palanisamy (D) by Lrs. and Others, , in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court held thus:

Mere refusal of the landlord to receive the rent cannot justify the action of the tenant in straightaway invoking Section 8(5) of the Act without

following the procedure contained in the earlier sub-sections i.e., Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 8.

The learned counsel for the first respondent/tenant in all the revisions submitted that inasmuch as the first respondent in all the petitions are

running shops, viz., Tailoring Mart, Cycle Store, Barber Shop, Trading Agency, and Fancy Store respectively and without knowing the legal

procedures, after causing lawyer notice requesting the landlord to name the bank, they filed the Rent Control Original Petitions u/s 8(5) of the Act

seeking permission to deposit the rent into Court without sending the rent by money order and as such, according to the learned counsel that being

technical mistake as also observed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, it cannot stand in the way of tenants in depositing the rent into

Court. Such argument advanced by the learned counsel for the first respondent/tenant is not acceptable.

As per Section 8(2) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, if the landlord refuses to accept, or evades the receipt of rent

lawfully payable to him by a tenant, then the tenant can cause notice to specify within ten days, a bank into which the rent may be deposited to the

credit of the landlord and if the bank is specified by the landlord, the tenant is to deposit the rent in the bank and as per Section 8(4) of the Act, if

the landlord does not specify a bank, the tenant has to remit the rent to the landlord by money order, deducting the money order commission and if

the landlord refuses to receive the rent sent by money order u/s 8(4) of the Act, then only the tenant can invoke the provision u/s 8(5) of the Act

seeking permission to deposit the rent into Court.

Admittedly, the tenants in these petitions after causing notice u/s 8(2) of the Act requesting the landlord to specify the Bank for depositing the

rent and since the landlord, viz., the revision petitioner herein has not informed the bank in which the rental amount can be deposited, without

following the next step, viz., by sending rental amount by way of money order, straightaway, moved the Rent Control Court seeking permission for

deposit of the rent, which is not proper and as such, the tenants in all the petitions cannot be permitted for depositing the rent into Court since the

procedures have not been followed as contemplated under the Act. It follows the permission granted by the first appellate Court for the tenants to

deposit the rent before the Rent Controller u/s 8(5) of the Act being improper and erroneous is to be set aside by allowing these revisions.

In the result, all the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The judgments and decrees dated 24.4.2002 in R.C.A. Nos. 11, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of

2002 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry are set aside. The H.R.C.O.P. Nos. 32, 30, 31, 33 and 34 of 2000 are

dismissed. No costs.