9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lready a tenant, orally agreed to pay monthly rent of ₹ 1,000/- on the first day of every English Calendar month and the respondent has paid the rent till the end of January, 1995, and not paid the rent for the subsequent months from February, 1995, till the end of February, 1996, in spite of repeated demands and the said action of the respondent amounts to wilful default and therefore the respondent is liable to be evicted under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 4. The tenant/respondent herein filed R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1996 under Section 8(5) of the Act seeking permission to deposit the rent before the Rent Controller stating that the petitioner herein was not receiving the rent and therefore he may be permitted to deposit the rent in the Court. 5. The learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Virudhunagar, by order dated 19.2.1997, allowed the eviction petition filed by the petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 1996 and dismissed the R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1996 filed by the tenant/respondent herein. 6. The tenant/respondent herein challenged both the orders by filing R.C.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 1997, which was allowed by the Rent Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,000/- per month as claimed by the Landlady, or ₹ 200/- as claimed by the Tenant. The learned counsels also submitted that all other issues can be left open to be decided by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and he may be directed to pass fresh orders in R.C.A.No.6 of 1997. 11. In view of the said submissions, the order passed in R.C.A.No.6 of 1997 dated 21.8.2003 is set aside and the same is remitted back to the Rent Control Appellate Authority viz., Subordinate Court, Virudhunagar, for fresh consideration and to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. 12. Insofar as R.C.A.No.5 of 1997 is concerned, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has reversed the finding given by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1996. The respondent herein filed R.C.O.P.No.14 of 1996 contending that from the encumbrance certificate only he could found that the petitioner herein has purchased the property and after knowing the said fact rental arrears at the rate of ₹ 200/- per month from March 1995 to January, 1996 was sent to the petitioner/landlady by demand draft along with registered letter on 13.2.1996 and the said demand draft was refused to be received. The sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all continue to deposit in it any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building. (4) If the landlord does not specify a bank as aforesaid, the tenant shall remit the rent to the landlord by Money Order, after deducting the money order commission. (5) If the landlord refuses to receive the rent remitted by Money Order under sub-section (4), the tenant may deposit the rent before the Controller and continue to deposit with him any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building. From the perusal of the above statutory provision it is evident that there must be refusal to accept the rent by the landlord, which is lawfully payable to him by a tenant, and if it is refused to be received, the tenant shall issue a notice in writing requesting the landlord to specify within ten days the bank in which the rent may be deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlord and if the landlord specifies a bank, the tenant shall deposit the rent in bank and shall continue to deposit the rent and if the landlord does not specify the bank, the tenant shall send the rent to the landlord by money order after taking money order commission. If t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Eviction) Act, 1950, this Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal (1996) 1 SCC 243 held: (SCC p.249, para 8) 8. In the present case, the appellant is seeking to avail of the benefit of the legal fiction under Section 19-A(4) of the Act. It is settled law that a legal fiction is to be limited to the purpose for which it is created and should not be extended beyond that legitimate field. [See Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 661 : 1955 (2) SCR 603 (SCR at p.646).] The appellant can avail of the benefit of Section 19-A(4) if the deposit of ₹ 3600 made by him in the Court of Munsif (South), Udaipur, on 29-10-1982, by way of rent for the months of May 1982 to October 1982, can be treated as a payment under Section 19-A(3)(c) so as to enable the appellant to say that he was not in default in payment of rent. Under Section 19-A(3)(c) the tenant can deposit the rent in the court only if the conditions laid down in the said provision are satisfied. It is the admitted case of the appellant that these conditions are not satisfied in the present case. The deposit which was made by the respondent in court on 29-10-1982 cannot, therefore, be regarded as a deposit m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in 2006 (3) LW 304 (S.Pandian v. A.G.Velayudham), dealt with Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, and held that the tenant should meticulously follow the procedure enumerated under Section 8 of the Act. 19. Thus it is clear that the Tenant shall strictly follow the mandatory procedures contained in sub-sections (2) to (4) to Section 8 of the Act, before filing a petition under section 8(5) of the Act before the Rent Controller. 20. It is well settled in law that when a statute prescribes to do a particular thing in a particular manner, the same shall not be done in any other manner than prescribed under the law. The said proposition is well recognised as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following decisions: (a) In the decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 358 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh) in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Judgment, it is held thus, 7. In Nazir Ahmed's case, 63 Ind App 372: (AIR 1936 PC 253 (2)) the Judicial Committee observed that the principle applied in Taylor v. Taylor, (1876) 1 Ch.D 426 to a Court, namely, that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor (AIR 1936 PC 253) who stated as under: (W)here a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. 32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. (AIR 1954 SC 322) and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1961 SC 1527). These cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh (AIR 1964 SC 358) and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmed case (AIR 1936 PC 253) was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law. (c) In Captain Sube Singh v. Lt.Governor of Delhi, AIR 2004 SC 3821 : (2004) 6 SCC 440, the Supreme Court, at paragraph 29, held as follows: 29. In Anjum M.H. Ghaswala a Constitution Bench of this Court reaffirmed the general rule that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself. (See also in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
