2009 (1) TMI 919 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Wilful Default in Payment of Rent
2. Dispute Regarding Actual Rent Payable
3. Maintainability of Petition u/s 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960

Summary:

1. Wilful Default in Payment of Rent:
The landlady filed R.C.O.P.No.13 of 1996 before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the tenant on the grounds of wilful default in payment of rent from February 1995. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition, but the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed this decision. The High Court noted that the appellate court did not ascertain the actual rent payable, making it impossible to determine wilful default.

2. Dispute Regarding Actual Rent Payable:
The tenant claimed the rent was Rs. 200 per month, while the landlady claimed it was Rs. 1,000 per month. The High Court highlighted that the appellate court failed to provide a clear finding on the actual rent. The matter was remitted back to the Rent Control Appellate Authority to determine the actual rent and decide accordingly.

3. Maintainability of Petition u/s 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960:
The tenant filed R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1996 u/s 8(5) seeking permission to deposit rent in court, claiming the landlady refused to accept the rent. The Rent Controller dismissed this petition, but the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the decision. The High Court emphasized that the tenant did not follow the mandatory procedures u/s 8(2) to 8(4) before filing the application u/s 8(5). The tenant failed to issue a notice in writing to the landlady to specify a bank for depositing the rent. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate authority's order and confirmed the Rent Controller's decision.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed C.R.P.(NPD)No.475 of 2004, remitting the matter back to the Rent Control Appellate Authority for fresh consideration regarding the actual rent. It also allowed C.R.P.(NPD)No.476 of 2004, setting aside the appellate authority's order in R.C.A.No.5 of 1997 and confirming the Rent Controller's dismissal of R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1996.