M. K. Munthan
Vs. M. Pasupathi  Insc 323 (13 July 2001)
S.S.M.Quadri S. N. Variava, J.
Appeal is against an Order dated 4th November, 1997.
stated the facts are as follows:
Appellant was inducted by the Respondent as a tenant in the concerned premises
with effect from 1st
July, 1988. A sum of
Rs.3,000/- was paid as advance. The Appellant was to pay every month a rent Rs.300/-.
Respondent filed R.C.O.P. No. 2210 of 1989 before the Rent Controller, Madras under Section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as
the said Act).
Respondent claimed that the Appellant had defaulted in making the payment of
rent from the very first month itself. The Respondent claimed that there were
arrears of rent in the sum of Rs. 3,600/-. The Appellant contested this
application. The Appellant claimed that he had sent a money order which was
refused by the Respondent. The Appellant claimed that he had sent a Notice
dated 13th November,
1988 calling upon the
landlord to disclose his bank account into which rent may be deposited. The
Appellant claimed that the landlord had not replied and thus he had thereafter
filed R.C.O.P. No. 1643 of 1989 for depositing rent in the Court.
By an Order
dated 19th December,
1998 the Rent
Controller passed an order of eviction. Against this Order the Appellant filed
R.C.A. No. 306 of 1991 which was allowed by an Order dated 13th April, 1993. The Respondent then filed a
Revision in the High Court which has been allowed by the impugned Order dated 4th November, 1997. By this Order it has been held
that the Appellant had defaulted in payment of rent. The Order of the Rent
Controller directing eviction has been restored. The Appellant was given 3
months time to vacate.
submitted that the tenant had done everything possible to pay the rent. He
submitted that it was the Respondent who was refusing to accept rent. Mr. Sampath
submitted that the tenant had sent a money order which had been refused by the
Respondent. He submitted that thereafter the Appellant gave a Notice to the
Respondent asking for the number of Bank A/c in which the rent could be
deposited. He submitted that the landlord refused to reply to that notice. He
submitted that the Appellant had, therefore, filed an Application for
depositing the rent in Court. He submitted that under these circumstances it
could not be said that the tenant had committed any default. He submitted that
it was the landlord who made it impossible for the tenant to pay the rent.
other hand, Mr. Setia has supported the impugned Order and submitted that on
facts it is clear that the tenant had been continuously committing the defaults
and has not paid the rent.
have considered the submissions of the parties. To decide whether there is any default,
facts need to be looked at in detail. Admittedly, the tenancy commence with
effect from 1st July,
1988. The monthly rent
was Rs. 300/-. The Appellant should have started paying rent from the month of
July itself. No reason has been disclosed as to why rent was not paid in July,
August and September even though it was to be paid every month. For the first
time, in November a money order is sent for the rent for the months of July,
August and September. The money order comes back with the endorsement
"Addressee not found". From that it is clear that the Respondent has
not refused to accept the money order. It is very pertinent to note, at this
stage, that the Respondent and the Appellant are staying in the same building.
The Respondent has proved that, at time when money order was sent, he had gone
out of town to attend the funeral of his mother-in-law.
appears that, knowing that the Respondent was not in town, the money order has
been sent. Even otherwise it is impossible to believe that the
Respondent/landlord would refuse to accept rent from the very first month after
having let out the premises to the Appellant.
though the money order was returned with the endorsement "addressee not
found" no attempt has been made by the tenant to repay the rent. A Notice
is then sent on 3rd
November, 1988. Of
course the landlord does not reply to this Notice. The Appellant then does
nothing. It is only after the landlord files an Eviction Petition that the
Appellant files an Application to deposit the rent in Court. In our view the
High Court was quite right in concluding, on these facts, that the tenant had
defaulted in payment of rent.
next submitted that in any event an advance of Rs. 3,000/- had been paid and the
landlord could have adjusted the same. However, even with an advance of Rs.
3,000/- there is still default. The advance would cover only 10 months rent,
whereas the rent has not been paid for a period of 12 months.
these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the Order of the High Court. We
see no reason to interfere. The Appeal stands dismissed.