@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.@mdashThe unsuccessful tenant before learned the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the revision petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dated 26.4.2001 and made in R.C.A. No. 33 of 2001 confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 22.12.2000 and made in M.P. No.693 of 2000 in R.C.O.P.No.845 of 2000 passed u/s 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') directing the revision petitioner/tenant to pay the rental arrears from February 2000 at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month till the date of passing of the order to the tune of Rs.54,650/- on or before 10.01.2001 failing which to stop all further proceedings in the main petition and to evict him from the petition mentioned property.
2. The respondent/landlord filed Petition in R.C.O.P.No.845 of 2000 for eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant from the petition mentioned residential premises on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent from February 2000 to April 2000. It is also stated in the petition that the advance amount was adjusted towards arrears of rent till January 2000. The Rent Control Original Petition was resisted by the tenant as respondent by filing counter.
3. The respondent/landlord filed M.P. No.693 of 2000 u/s 11(4) of the Act claiming that the tenant, namely, the revision petitioner, has not paid the rent from February 2000 to July 2000 at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month even after filing of the Rent Control Original Petition. The said petition was also contested by the tenant by filing counter and the learned Rent Controller, considering the documents Exs.P.1 to P.14 filed on the side of the landlord and also Exs.R.1 to R.4 filed on the side of the tenant, recorded finding that the revision petitioner/tenant fell in arrears of rent from February 2000 till the date of order, i.e., 22.12.2000, at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month and as such, a sum of Rs.54,650/- is to be deposited by the tenant towards arrears of rent on or before 10.01.2001. The said order was challenged by the tenant in appeal in R.C.A.No.33 of 2001 and the appeal was also dismissed on 26.4.2001 confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller, which made the tenant to prefer this revision petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/tenant as well as the respondent/landlord.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner argued that inasmuch as a sum of Rs.30,000/- was deposited towards arrears of rent as directed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority while granting stay in M.P. No.11 of 2001 and a further sum of Rs.24,650/- was deposited on 28.9.2001 as directed by the learned Rent control Appellate Authority in M.P.No.579 of 2001 in R.C.A.No.602 of 2001, the entire arrears of rent of Rs.54,650/- as directed by the learned Rent Controller in the order in M.P.No.693 of 2000 have been deposited by the tenant, and as such, no further orders need be made u/s 11(4) of the Act pursuant to the order in M.P. No.693 of 2000 passed by the learned Rent Controller. In this regard, the learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in M.GOVINDARAJAN Vs. R.S.VAIDEESWARAN (2001 (2) TLNJ 166) wherein the learned Judge has held thus:
"Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 as amended s. 11(4) --- Pending eviction tenant was directed to deposit arrears of Rent within a particular date. Tenant filed appeal. In the application for stay, the Appellate Authority directed the tenant to deposit arrears of rent within a particular date. Tenant complied with the order. Appeal was dismissed. Rent Controller holds that the tenant has not complied with his order and proceedings were stopped. Tenant filed appeal and it was dismissed. In Revision, held that the appellate authority had deemed to have extended the time for payment fixed by the Rent Controller."
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord vehemently contended that the deposit of Rs.30,000/- on 23.01.2001 in the stay application in M.P.No.11 of 2001 by the revision petitioner/tenant as directed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and the deposit of Rs.24,650/- on 28.9.2001 in M.P.No.579 of 2001 in R.C.A.No.602 of 2001 as directed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority during the pendency of appeal cannot be construed as time granted for the tenant for depositing the arrears of rent as found by the learned Rent Controller in M.P.No.693 of 2000. The learned counsel further submitted that inasmuch as the tenant has not deposited the entire arrears of rent as per the order of the learned Rent Controller in M.P. No.693 of 2000 pursuant to the stay granted by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and also by this Court, it cannot be said that the entire arrears of rent have been deposited by the tenant within the stipulated time as ordered by the Rent Controller and, therefore, further orders have to be passed u/s 11(4) of the Act. In this regard, the learned counsel relied on the decision of this Court in S.K.RAJAPANDIAN Vs. A.KESAVAN (1991-2-L.W.453) wherein it has been held thus:
"The mere fact that an order of stay is granted by the Appellate Authority would not mean that the time granted by the Rent Controller for deposit of arrears of rent under S. 11 of the Act was extended by the Appellate Authority. If the tenant wanted to comply with the order of the Rent Controller then he should have applied for extension of time either before the Rent Controller or the petitioner ought to have filed an application before the Appellate Authority for extension of time for making the deposit as directed by the Rent Controller.
........... ........ .............
The filing of an appeal would never be a sufficient cause for non-compliance with the order of Rent Controller. The petitioner has expressed his intention unequivocally to challenge the order of the Rent Controller by filing the appeal and his intention was not to comply with the order. He wanted the order of the Rent Controller to be set aside. By no stretch of imagination, such filing of appeal would be a sufficient cause for failure of the tenant to comply with the order of the Rent Controller in time."
7. The learned Rent Controller as per order in M.P.No.690 of 2000 dated 22.12.2000 directed the tenant to deposit the rental arrears to the tune of Rs.54,650/- on or before 10.01.2001. The very next day, the revision petitioner/tenant filed R.C.A.No.33 and obtained stay in M.P.No.11 of 2001 and as per direction while granting stay by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, the revision petitioner/tenant also deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- on 23.01.2001 and a further sum of Rs.24,250/- was also deposited on 28.9.2001 as per the direction of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in M.P.No.579 of 2001 during the pendency of the appeal in R.C.A.No.602 of 2001 and as such, the entire arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.54,650/- as ordered by the learned Rent Controller has been deposited by the tenant. In view of the fact that the revision petitioner/tenant has deposited the entire arrears of rent as directed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and as held by this Court in M.GOVINDARAJAN vs. R.S.VAIDEESWARAN 2001 (2) TLNJ 166 (cited supra), such time granted by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is to be taken as time granted for payment of rental arrears fixed by the learned Rent Controller and, therefore, no further orders need be made u/s 11(4) of the Act pursuant to the order in M.P.No.693 of 2000 passed by the learned Rent Controller, which has been confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.33 of 2001. I am in respectful agreement with the judgment cited above. The fact that stay application was filed seeking stay of the order of the learned Rent Controller is to be construed as application for extension of further time for depositing rental arrears as determined by the learned Rent Controller since in such cases, conditional stay is granted on deposit of rental arrears. The entire deposit of rental arrears during the pendency of the appeal as directed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is also to be construed as the time granted by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority for making entire deposit of rental arrears. The order of learned Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller passed in petition filed u/s 11(1) of the Act is to be set aside since there is illegality, impropriety and irregularity in such order in not considering the time granted by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority for deposit of arrears of rent as extension of time granted. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority is to be interfered with.
8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dated 26.4.2001 and made in R.C.A. No. 33 of 2001. The Rent Controller is directed to restore the Rent Control Original Petition on file and dispose the same in accordance with law.
