T. Ramaprasada Rao, CJ.
1. There is no error of jurisdiction in the order. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority went into the question in detail and found as to what was the amount payable by the tenant and after giving him sufficient opportunity to pay or to deposit the rent as determined (in this casein was not even disputed), the Rent Controller passed a final order directing the petitioner-tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building because of non-compliance. It is as against the concurrent findings of fact and the ultimate conclusions arrived at by the two Tribunals that the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
2. A proceeding under Section 11(4) of the Act is intended to accelerate the long-drawn proceedings tinder the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. As eviction is possible in a case where the tenant commits wilful default in the payment of rents and particularly, after the recent amendment in 1973 explaining wilful default as meaning non-payment or tender of rent after the issue of a notice calling for such payment of rent by the landlord, the importance of Section 11(4) has to be brought to light and in its true light. Section 11(4) is, therefore, intended to make the tenant alert during the entirety of the proceedings and be conscious of his obligations and statutory duties in the matter of payment of rents. Even here, the Legislature has provided that the Rent Controller in a case where an application under Section 11(4) is taken by the landlord should enquire into the dispute as to the amount of rent to be' paid by the tenant and make such enquiry as he deems necessary and summarily determine the rent so to be paid or deposited. Such enquiry should not be long-drawn as in the case with the main proceedings. They are intended to be summary and they have to be disposed of at least within four weeks from the date when such applications are filed. This would be therefore, a directive to the lower Court to see that applications under Section 11(4) are heard and decided within two months from the date of presentation of such applications. There is absolutely no justification to keep such applications beyond such time. This is an observation to the Courts below, so that hereafter at least there may be an accelerated disposal of the rent control matters.
3. In the instant case; the application under Section 11(4) was filed by the landlord in a Rent Control Petition of the year, 1976. This was filed in or about June, 1967. The Rent Controller disposed of the matter on the 29th of December, 1977 holding that the tenant in, spite of opportunities given, did not deposit the amount which was admittedly payable by the tenant. Therefore, she slopped all the proceedings under Section 11(4) and passed final orders of eviction. This matter was taken up in appeal before the Appellate Authority. This came up nearly an year thereafter in August, 1978. The order of eviction was stayed by an interlocutory order. It appears that a conditional order was made in April, 1978 directing the tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 1,000. Nothing was done excepting a payment of Rs. 300 on 24th April, 1978. Further time was granted for payment of the balance. The case was adjourned to 15th June, 1978. Even then, no payment was made. Finally, the appeal was taken up on 16th August, 1978 when the Appellate Court agreed with the Rent Controller and allowed the application under Section 11(4) and sustained the order of eviction. It is as against this the present revision petition has been filed.
4. Having regard to the dates to which the matters have been adjourned from time to time this Court has been constrained to pass the above observation in the nature of a directive to the Courts below in the matter of disposal of application under Section 11(4).
5. On the merits, there is absolutely no case for the petitioner-tenant. He was not only given opportunities which were several by the Rent Controller but also by the Appellate Authority which also gave many indulgences for clearance of the arrears. In spite of it, nothing has been done. It is only to safeguard the interests of the landlords in relation to such recalcitrant tenants that a provision like Section 11(4) has been introduced. The very purpose of the said section would be lost if the order of eviction had not been passed early by the Courts below. Rightly the Courts found that the admitted arrears have not been paid in spite of several opportunities given to the tenant. It was in these circumstances, the order was made under Section 11(4). They had the jurisdiction to do it. There was sufficient material to act upon and the decision on such material arrived at by the Courts below is correct.
6. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Provided all arrears of rent are paid by one month 'from this date, the petitioner shall have four months' time to vacate.