Maragathammal vs Kamalammal

The appellant herein filed R.C.O.P. No.162 of 1992 against the respondent for eviction on the grounds of willful default, demolition and reconstruction and also subletting. The respondents premises is a non- residential one and the monthly rent is stated to be Rs. 650/-. According to the appellant, the respondent failed to pay the rent from March 1990 to 1997 apart from having sublet the premises. It was also claimed that the building required demolition and reconstruction. According to the respondent, the rents were paid regularly till June 1992 and the first appellant refused to receive the rents from the month of July 1992 as he demanded an enhanced rent. It was also claimed that the rents from the month of July 1992 were deposited in a bank account. The respondent also contended that the requirement of demolition and reconstruction was not bona fide. While the main R.C.O.P. was pending the first appellant filed an application vide I.A. No.523 of 1993 under Section 11 of the Act in which an order was passed on 9.11.1995, directing the respondent to deposit the entire admitted arrears of rent into court on or before 22.11.1995 failing compliance of which the respondent's defence would be struck off. The respondent is stated to have filed a lodgment schedule on 21.11.1995, as disclosed from the court seal found in the copy of the lodgment schedule filed by the respondent. In the said lodgment schedule, the respondent wanted to deposit the rents from the months of June 1992 onwards up to October 1995, in all, a sum of Rs.26,650/- covering 41 months. The said lodgment schedule came to be considered and issue of challan for depositing the sum of Rs.26,650/- was ordered only on 29.11.1995.

In the above stated circumstance, the Rent Controller passed orders on 1.12.1995 holding that the respondent failed to deposit the admitted arrears in spite of ample opportunities extended to her and, therefore, her defence stood struck off and the I.A. was allowed. In view of the order passed in the said I.A. No.523 of 1993, the Rent Controller also passed an order in the main R.C.O.P. itself on 22.3.1996 ordering eviction. As against the above said orders, the respondent preferred R.C.A. Nos. 63 of 1997 and 96 of 1998. R.C.A. No.63 of 1997 is the appeal preferred against the order passed in I.A. No.523 of 1993. In fact, the respondent is stated to have filed the said appeal belatedly and for that purpose I.A. No.22 of 1996 in R.C.A. CFR No.27 4 of 1996 was filed on her behalf to condone the delay in filing the appeal. In the said I.A. No.22 of 1996, the appellate authority directed the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent from June 1992 to July 1997, in all, a sum of Rs.39,650/- on or before 16.7.1997. The order in I.A. No.22 of 1996 was passed on 8.7.1997. The respondent also deposited the sum of Rs.39,650/- on 14.7.1997. Thereafter, the appeal came to be numbered as R.C.A. No.63 of 1997. Both the appeals were disposed of by a common order dated 4.7.2000.

Against the appellate's order dated 4.7.2000, two Revision Petitions were filed before the Madras High Court, which were disposed of by the impugned judgment.

We are afraid that we cannot agree with the view taken by the High Court.

the controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application: