Skip to content


C. Swaminatha Mudaliar Sons, a Partnership Firm Represented by One of the Partners Kambikkai Mary and ors. Vs. S.M. Singaram and Sinniah, Executor and Administrator Under the Will Deed of His Mother M.S.M. Mannammi Achi of Pannayapatti Village and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1982)1MLJ418
AppellantC. Swaminatha Mudaliar Sons, a Partnership Firm Represented by One of the Partners Kambikkai Mary an
RespondentS.M. Singaram and Sinniah, Executor and Administrator Under the Will Deed of His Mother M.S.M. Manna
Cases ReferredKuppanna Chettiar v. Ramachnndrari
Excerpt:
- - 579 of 1977 as well as the petition for eviction in r......been probated and that, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. the rent controller framed five points on the averments and considered all the contentions in i.a. no. 579 of 1977 and recorded his findings in these terms : there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the petitioners in the eviction petition are the landlords entitled to receive rent for the premises. it was also found that a sum of rs. 37,410 was due as arrears of rent and the rent controller directed the tenants to deposit the said sum along with the current arrears within a prescribed time granted, failing which, the eviction petition shall stand allowed. this order was passed on 11th july, 1978. admittedly these arrears were not paid or deposited by the tenants and.....
Judgment:
ORDER

T.N. Singaravelu, J.

1. The above civil revision petition was disposed of by this Court on 19th October, 1981 and the learned Counsel for the landlords has filed this memo, seeking for clarification and guidance with reference to the order passed already. Notice was issued to the other side and learned Counsel for both parties were heard.

2. The landlords filed the petition for eviction of the tenants on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and requirement for demolition and reconstruction. During the pendency of the petition, the landlords filed an application in I.A. No. 579 of 1977 under Section 11 (4) of Act XVIII of 1960, for a direction to the tenants to deposit the arrears of rent failing which, for stoppage of all further proceedings and for an order of eviction. The tenants raised all sorts of contentions, namely, that the petitioners in the eviction petition are not the landlords, that the arrears prior to the period of three years are barred by time and that the will in favour of the landlords by the original landlady has not been probated and that, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The Rent Controller framed five points on the averments and considered all the contentions in I.A. No. 579 of 1977 and recorded his findings in these terms : There is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the petitioners in the eviction petition are the landlords entitled to receive rent for the premises. It was also found that a sum of Rs. 37,410 was due as arrears of rent and the Rent Controller directed the tenants to deposit the said sum along with the current arrears within a prescribed time granted, failing which, the eviction petition shall stand allowed. This order was passed on 11th July, 1978. Admittedly these arrears were not paid or deposited by the tenants and the tenants prefered an appeal hi C.M.A. No. 246 of 1978 against that order. The Appellate Authority also considered all the contentions of the parties in an elaborate order, discussed the case-law on the subject and confirmed the order of the Rent Controller directing the tenants to deposit Rs. 37,970 including the subsequent arrears. The tenants were aggrieved and they filed the above civil revision petition, C.R.P. No. 2981 of 1979 before this Court which also considered all the contentions raised by the tenants, namely, that the petitioners in the eviction petition are not the landlords, that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and that, in any event, the landlords cannot file this petition for eviction without probating the will in their favour. The tenants also contended that they need not pay the time-barred arrears of rent and that, they were liable to pay only three years' rent prior to the filing of the petition. This Court negatived all the contentions of the tenants and dismissed the civil revision petition on 19th October, 1981, after answering all the points.

3. Learned Counsel for the landlords has filed this memo, for clarification stating that after the disposal of this civil revision petition on 19th October, 1981, the landlords filed E.P. No. 719 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif's Court (Rent Controller), Madurai for executing the order of eviction but that the Rent Controller without understanding the judgment of the High Court restored I.A. No. 579 of 1977 (filed under Section 11 (4) - of Act XVIII of 1960) and has posted the main petition for eviction for trial. Learned Counsel submits that the order passed in the petition under Section 11(4) has become final and inasmuch as the arrears of rent were not deposited within the time prescribed, the consequential order of eviction has come to stay and therefore, the eviction petition itself is not pending. In other words, it was pointed out that the Rent Controller himself has passed the order that if the arrears of rent are not paid within the time granted by him, the petition for eviction will stand allowed. Therefore, nothing reamains to be done after the disposal of the civil revision petition (C.R.P. No. 2981 of 1979) and that the action of the Rent Controller in restoring I.A. No. 579 of 1977 as well as the petition for eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 395 of 1977 as if they are pending is without jurisdiction.

4. As against this, learned Counsel for the tenants would argue that what was disposed of earlier was only the application under Section 11(4) of the Act and not that the merits of the case were considered. Therefore, it is stated that it is open to the tenants to agitate the matter in the petition for eviction which has been revived after the disposal of C.R.P. No. 2981 of 1979.. It is also submitted on behalf of the tenant that they have since paid the arrears of Tent and therefore, they are entitled tocontest R.C.O.P. No. 395 of 1977, which according to them is still pending.

5. Section 11(4) of Act, 1960 runs as follows:

If any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid (as provided under Section 11(1)) 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 buildings.

As stated already, in I.A. No. 579 of 1977, the tenants raised all possible contentions and the Rent Controller framed five points and recorded his findings and finally directed that a sum of Rs. 37,000 and odd should be paid within the time allowed failing which the eviction petition shall stand allowed. Admittedly, the tenants did not deposit the amount but has preferred an appeal and then a revision against the order in I.A. No. 579 of 1977. The Rent Controller has inquired into the dispute regarding the quantum of rent to 1 paid and, after receiving a lot of documentary evidence, determined the amount to be paid and gave the tenants time for paying it. Though Section 11(3) of the Act states that the determination is only summary in nature, the Rent Controller has gone through the question in depth and ascertained the arrears in his elaborate order. There are, the tenants should have deposited the determined amount into Court within the time granted as otherwise, the eviction petition will stand allowed as ordered by the Rent Controller. The fact that the tenants have taken up the matter in appeal will not help them and they should have deposited the amount without prejudice to their contentions. The Division Bench rulins; of this Court reported in Kuppanna Chettiar v. Ramachnndrari : (1980)1MLJ136 , is a direct authority for the proposition that the subsequent payment of arrears will not help the tenants. Though this reported case was one arising under the Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, the ratio is wholly applicable in this case also. The result is, the subsequent payment lone after the expiry of the time granted to the tenants will not at all absolve them from the consequence of the order of eviction.

6. Learned Counsel for the landlords urges that the Rent Controller has revived the petition for eviction and has posted it for trial and therefore, a direction to the Rent Controller by this Court will be just and proper in the circumstances of the case. It would appear that the Rent Controller has revived the petition for eviction after the disposal of this civil revision petition, C.R.P. No. 2981 of 1979 by this Court and is proceeding with the inquiry in that petition. In I.A. No. 579 of 1977, the Rent Controller himself has ordered that if the amount was not paid within a particular date, the main eviction petition will stand allowed. Inasmuch as the arrears are not paid or deposited, the order of eviction follows and that was the very purport of Section 11(4) of the Act. Therefore, it is wrong on the part of the Rent Controller to construe that the petition for eviction R.C.O.P. No. 395 of 1977 is still pending and that it could be enquired into on other aspects. Even assuming that no final order was passed on the main eviction petition, the Rent Controller has no other option but to pass the consequential order of eviction. In other words, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction under the Act to proceed to enquire into the other aspects of the case, when the conditional order was not complied with. In other words, even if R.C.O.P. No. 395 of 1977 is kept pending by the Rent Controller, he has to pass a formal order in pursuance of the above cited decision of the High Court. In this connection, it may be pointed out that all the aspects of the case raised by the tenants have been duly considered by the three Courts in succession and the Rent Controller is hound by these findings. This clarification is accordingly issued to the Rent Controller. Time for vacating three months, since the tenant wants to move the Supreme Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //