Mohan, J.@mdashThis is a revision Petition in which the entire blame has to be borne only by the revision Petitioner. At any rate, he has to be
squarely blamed for not bringing a very vital matter to the notice of the Appellate Authority whose Order is sought to be revised. Against the
Petitioner, an Order of eviction was passed in House Rent Case No. 641 of 1978 on 24th July, 1980 on the file of the Court of Small Causes,
Madras. Aggrieved against that Order of eviction, he preferred House Rent Appeal No. 1506 of 1980. Under the terms of Section 11 of the
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), hereinafter referred to as the Act, it is incumbent upon him to deposit all
arrears of rent due in respect of the building tip to the date of payment or deposit. There is a further obligation to continue the payment or the
deposit of any rent which might subsequently become due in respect of the building until the termination of proceedings before the Controller or
Appellate Authority. The Petitioner preferred Miscellaneous Petition No. 3239 of 1980 requiring time to deposit the arrears of rent which had
accrued up to the date, namely, Rs. 16,600. Time was granted to deposit the entire amount on or before 25th April 1981. That Order was
questioned in Civil Revision Petition No. 1346 of 1981. This Court dismissed the revision in limine. This was on 24th April 1981. Thereafter,
without bringing that to the notice of the Appellate Authority, a sum of Rs. 5,000 was deposited on the next day, namely 25th April 1981 and for
deposit of the remaining amount of Rs. 11,600 time was extended in a separate application in Miscellaneous Petition. No. 1079 of 1981 till 24th
June 1981. Therefore, it was ordered that the matter may be called on 25th June 1981 awaiting the deposit. On 25th June 1981, the balance of
Rs. 11,600 was not deposited in full; only a sum of Rs. 5,000 alone was deposited. At this juncture, it is necessary for me to refer to the affidavit
filed in support of the Petition for extension of time (Miscellaneous Petition No. 1079 of 1981). That runs as follows:
(1) I am the Appellant-Petitioner herein.
(2) I state that in Miscellaneous Petition No. 3239 of 1980 I was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 16,600 in this Hon''ble Court before 24th April
1981 and I have made some arrangements for the same.
(3) I state that suddenly my mother became seriously ill and I had to rush to my native place at Chavakad near Guruvayur. My mother passed
away on 11th April 1981 and 1 had to incur heavy expenses in connection with my mother''s demise.
(4) I submit that as heavy stakes are involved. I will be seriously prejudiced if extension of time for payment of Rs. 16,600 is not granted.
(5) It is therefore just and necessary that this Hon''ble Court be pleased to grant me two month''s time i.e. from 24th April, 1981 to 24th June,
1981 to enable me to comply with the Order of this Hon''ble Court to deposit the amount of Rs. 16,600 and pass such further or other Orders as
this Hon''ble Court be pleased in the circumstances of the case.
2. It was under these circumstances the Appellate Authority thought fit to make an Order u/s 11(4) of the Act and dismissed the appeal summarily.
It is this which has filed to the present revision.
3. In the meanwhile, certain developments which took place at the instance of the Petitioner also require to be stated. He sought stay of the Order
of eviction during the pendency of the revision and that stay application was dismissed. Thereupon the matter was taken up to the Supreme Court.
The Petitioner was directed to deposit the entire arrears due and the present civil revision Petition was directed by the Supreme Court to be
disposed of on merits.
4. What is now contended before me is that, in as much as all the arrears up to date as required on the part of the Petitioner have been deposited,
the Rent Control Appeal may be directed to be taken on file and he disposed of on merits. The Respondents strenuously urges that once Civil
Revision Petition No. 1346 of 1981 had come to be dismissed the Order bad become final and thereafter there is no scope for extension of time.
On 25th April 1981 the position was, the Petitioner had no other choice excepting to comply with the Order of the deposit of Rs. 16,600, if he
was really serious in prosecuting the appeal. But strangely deposited merely Rs. 5,000 and got time for another two months. Even then be would
not comply with the Order in full. Where, therefore, the extension itself on 25th April 1981 was obtained only in the teeth of the Order of the High
Court, this is clearly a case of suppression of a material fact. Under these circumstances this Court will not interfere having regard to the conduct of
the Petitioner. It is no consolation to say that presently all the arrears have been deposited.
5. On a careful consideration of the matter. I am of the view that the contention urged on behalf of the Respondent has great force. This is a clear
case of suppressing a very vital fact which had enabled the Petitioner to gain an indulgence before the Appellate Authority. It has already been
noted that Civil Revision Petition No. 1346 of 1981 was preferred against a direction of the Appellate Authority requiring the Petitioner to deposit
a sum of Rs. 16,600 on or before 25th April, 1981. Civil Revision Petition No. 1346 of 1981, was dismissed on 24th April 1981 in limine. The
result of such dismissal was the Order requiring the Petitioner to deposit Rs. 16,600 on or before 25th April 1981 had become final. Thereafter,
there was absolutely no scope for extension. Had only he brought it to the knowledge of the Appellate Authority on 25th April, 1981 that the
revision was unsuccessfully preferred to this Court, I do not think the Appellate Authority would have been unwise enough to grant the extension.
The very next day, as nothing had happened, the Petitioner goes before the Appellate Authority and deposits a sum of Rs. 5,000 and then an
extension was granted till 24th June 1981 requiring him to deposit the balance of Rs. 11,600. Even on that date the entire deposit was not made.
An application was preferred requesting a grant of one more month''s time. At least at that stage, the Petitioner should have informed the Appellate
Authority about the dismissal of the revision. Certainly the Appellate Authority would have woken up and retraced the steps. Fortunately, in this
case justice has been done even blindfolded by the Appellate Authority. He chose to reject the request of the Petitioner to grant time beyond 24th
June, 1981. That seems to be a blessing in disguise. Ultimately, justice has triumphed. Where, therefore, the above circumstances clearly indicate
that there has been a material suppression of a vital factor by the Petitioner, I am unable to see how the Petitioner''s act could be condoned. As
correctly contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, it is no consolation that the entire deposit bad been made as on today pursuance
to the direction of the Supreme Court. What the Petitioner has done is the minimal statutory requirement as laid down u/s 11(1) of the Act, which
is extracted below:
Payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceeding for eviction. (1) No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made
by a landlord u/s 10 shall be entitled to contest the application before the Controller under that Section or to prefer any appeal u/s 23 against any
Order made by the Controller on the application unless he has paid or pays to the landlord or deposits with the Controller or the Appellate
authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of the building up to the date of payment or deposit, and continues to pay or to
deposit any rent which may be subsequently become due in respect of the building until the termination of the proceedings before the Controller or
the Appellate authority as the case may be.
6. But for this deposit it would not be possible for him to contest the appeal at all. Therefore I do not think the Petitioner could gain any sympathy
on this ground. For all these reasons, I have not the slightest hesitation in dismissing the revision. I am inclined to award costs against the Petitioner
because of his failure to bring to the notice of the Appellate Authority the very vital fact, namely, the dismissal of Civil Revision Petition No. 1346
of 1981 which, as observed above, would have changed the entire history of this litigation.
7. In the result, the civil revision Petition is dismissed with costs.
