Deposit Of Rent

S.NO

CONTENTS

PG.NO

DEPOSIT OF RENT

1.

Introduction

1

2.

Definition - Rent

2

3.

Origin –Concept Of Rent

3

4.

Other Definition Of Importance

4

5.

Rent Control

5

6.

The Legal Aspects Of Rent Control

6

7.

History Of Legislations A. The Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection) Act, 1955: B. Tamilnadu Building(Lease And Rent) Control Act 1960

8.

I.

Deposit Of Rent In Certain Cases

9.

II. Payment Or Deposit Of Rent During The Pendency

7 8 11 21

Of Proceedings 10.

III.

11

Conclusion

I.

Deposit Of Rent

24 31

Bibiliography

DEPOSIT OF RENT

INTRODUCTION Land reform usually refers to redistribution of land from the rich to the poor. More broadly, it includes regulation of ownership, operation, leasing, sales, and inheritance of land (indeed, the redistribution of land itself requires legal changes). Land reforms, on majority of cases, mean the re-distribution of agricultural land and hence corresponds to agrarian reforms too As in several other countries, rent control has been used in India as a tool of welfare governance. Though legislations have existed since pre-independence times, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (‘JNNURM’) has made rent control a contentious issue. JNNURM sees these legislations as an urban bottleneck that needs reform.Rent control in India was introduced to prevent pseudo-scarcity of rental housing post-World War II. The legislations allowed for requisitioning houses lying vacant in tenantable conditions. Although introduced as a temporary measure, rent control legislations have somehow continued as a policy decision. Conditions that demanded these legislations have changed. The pace of amendments has not kept up with the change in socio-economic demographics. What seems eternal is that housing shortages still exist. The fact is that rent control has been critiqued on grounds of being economically and socially inefficient.Rent control comes under the states’ legislative competence therefore, has to be reformed by the states themselves.Thus, the onus to implement reform lies on the states. Rent control laws viewed in India into three distinct phases. The preindependence legislations form the first generation laws. The post-independence legislation that protected tenancy rights (viz. protection against eviction) forms the

second generation laws. The legislations implemented in the period post the circulation of the Model Rent Control Legislation, 1992 (‘MRCL’) marked the epoch of third generation laws on the subject. A catena of judgments accepts that second generation rent control laws have been interpreted in favour of the tenant a lot more than was initially intended.Such is the gravity of the situation that ‘biased’ provisions in second generation laws have been declared to be void and ineffective. The accepted position of law remains that the legislations have to promote the complete intent behind the Act and not remain restricted to mere fulfilment of the object of the Act. In addition, the Model Rent Legislation that was to be the basis of reform of state laws, was adopted, albeit partly, in only four states. It has been accepted by the Law Commission of India in its 129th Report that the maximum number of disputes pending before courts is those relating to eviction. RENT The word "rent" is not defined in this Act or under the General Clauses Act. This definition has to be gathered from tile Standard Law Lexicon (I) the expression used in certain other Acts and the case-law. In Tomlin's Law Dictionary "rent" is defined as a sum of money or other consideration issued out of lands or other tenement generally taken as the consideration payable by a tenant forelands or tenements held under lease or demise. It is a right to profit usually though not, necessarily money; for it frequently consists of a part of the produce of the land, labour etc. It is the compensation either in money, provisions, chattels or labour, which is received by the owner of the soil or the person entitled to possession of the premises leased for the use and occupation thereof. In the ordinary sense it is a return in money or kind for the njoyment of a specific property held by one person from or under another: -- 'Gajjar v. Guru Surdul Singh', AIR 1925 Lah 196 (1) (A). The expression "rent" must be regarded as

having reference only as something that is payable not as compensation or damages but under or by virtue of a contract: --''Venkatayya v. Kistappa', AIR 1928 Mad 340 "(B). The characteristic of the rent is periodical or of a recurring character and payment on specified occasions. Rent is to be regarded not as accruing from day to day, but as falling due only at stated times according to the contract of tenancy or the general law in the absence of such contract: -- 'Satyendra Nath v. Nilkantha Singh', 21 Cal 383 The term "rent" used in the Madras Rent Control Act, 1960, would include all payments agreed to be paid by the tenant to his landlord for the use and occupation not only of the building and furniture but also for rates, electricity, water and other amenities including services. In other words, any sum of money which the tenant agrees to pay as consideration for the tenancy would be rent. ORIGIN –CONCEPT OF RENT Rent controls were introduced in the early 1900s in the United States and some other parts of the world to check uninhibited rent increases and tenant eviction during wartime housing emergencies. After World War II, there was a sudden increase in the demand for rentable housing from soldiers returning home. With industrialization and corresponding urbanization, there was an increase in rural-urban migrations. To prevent rents from rising too much owing to this spurt in demand, Rent Control Acts (RCAs), under various names were introduced in many countries. These were called the first-generation rent controls. Those introduced later were called the secondgeneration rent controls or soft rent controls, because they provided for some leeway in rent increases and tenant landlord relationship. The first rent control legislation in India was introduced immediately after the First World War in Bombay in 1918. It was followed by similar legislations for Calcutta and Rangoon in 1920. By the end of the Second World War almost all the

major cities and towns in the countries were covered by rent control measures. All these acts, born out of the inflationary aftermath of the First World War, were conceived as purely temporary measures to provide relief to the tenants against the demand of exorbitant rent and indiscriminate eviction by the landlords due to scarcity of houses in the urban areas. As in other parts of the globe, the rent control laws applicable in various states in India are different with respect to various aspects and thus, a holistic analysis, though attempted here, is difficult. OTHER DEFINITION OF IMPORTANCE Sec 2 (aa) “cultivating tenant” under The Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection) Act, 1955 (i)means a person who contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of any land belonging to another, under an agreement express or implied and (ii)includes (a) any such person who continues in possession of the land after the determination of the agreement. (b) the heir of such person, if the heir contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land : (c) a sub-tenant if he contributes his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of such land ; (d) any such sub-tenant who continues in possession of the land notwithstanding that the person who sublet the land to such sub-tenant ceases to have the right to possession of such land. And (e) but does not include a mere intermediary or his heir . sec 2(e) “Landlord” a person entitled to evict the cultivating tenant from such holding or part .

sec 2(8) Tenant : Tamilnadu Building(Lease and Rent) Control Act 1960 Section 2 Sub-clause (8) of the Act defines a 'tenant' in very broad terms, to include any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building and even to include the surviving spouse, or any son, or daughter and any person continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour.[ Ramiah Chettiar vs K. Sankaralingam Pillai (1970) 1 MLJ 483].The definition would include both the tenant during the subsistence of contractual tenancy and tenant continuing in possession after the termination of tenancy . RENT CONTROL The practice of imposing a legal maximum (rent ceiling) upon the rent in a particular housing market, below the equilibrium rent is called rent control. If this maximum is above that market’s equilibrium rent (different rental housing markets may have different equilibrium rents), then the control is null and void. But if the rent is set at a level below the equilibrium rent, it will necessarily lead to a situation of excess demand or shortage. In a free market, prices (here, rents) would rise automatically filling the gap between the demand and the supply. But rent controls prevent prices from rising up to the equilibrium level and thus, alternative rationing mechanisms such as black and uncontrolled markets evolve. A raging debate has been going on over the years over the pros and cons of rent control. While the proponents of rent control laws suggest that they prevent landlords from charging exorbitant rents and evicting tenants at will, the opponents suggest that rent control laws, by distorting incentives, lead to deterioration of existing housing stock,increased pullout of apartments from the rental housing market and thus reduced overall supply. Murphy’s law of Economic Policy states that “Economists have the least influence on policy where they know the most and are most agreed; they have the

most influence on policy where they know the least and disagree most vehemently”.1 While most economists agree that rent controls are bad, nothing of note has been done towards deregulating rents, especially in India. Also, the sheer diversity of rent control laws existing in various states and countries, coupled with phenomenal economic diversity makes it very difficult to generalize the argument across borders, and thus makes the task of policy makers that much more difficult. The Legal Aspects of Rent Control Under the Indian Constitution, housing (provision of) is a state subject. Thus, theenactment and enforcement of rent control laws is the responsibility of the individual states. While this is in accordance with the federal nature of the Indian Republic, it makes a comparative analysis of the rent control laws that much more difficult. The common thread running through almost all rent control Acts and legislations is that they are intended to serve two purposes: 1. To protect the tenant from eviction from the house where he is living except for defined reasons and on defined conditions; and 2. To protect him from having to pay more than a fair/standard rent. But most acts also confer upon the landlord the right to evict a tenant who is guilty of certain specified acts and also when the landlord requires the house for his own personal occupation. There are various grounds under which a landlord can evict a tenant. The most common of these are listed below. There are also some states, where one or more of the provisions given below don’t apply. 1. Breach of condition of tenancy 2. Subletting 3. Default in payment of rent for specified period 4. Requirement of building for own occupation

5. Material deterioration in the condition of the building The landlord is required to specify the exact provision of the relevant act under which he is seeking the eviction of the tenant, to enable the tenant to take any remedial action provided in the act. The whole idea of a rent control act is to control and regulate eviction of tenants and not to stop it altogether. HISTORY OF LEGISLATIONS The concept of deposit of Rent can be found in two Acts : The Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection) Act, 1955 and Tamilnadu Building(Lease and Rent Control Act 1960.Under the former Act the deposit of the Rent by the cultivating tenant occurs under Sec 3(3a) and in the latter Act deposit of the Rent under certain circumstances occurs under Sec 8 and 9 of the Act .Both of the provision provides the ways to becoming of defaulters in case landlord refuse or avoid to accept the Rent .Under the former Act if the Rent is payable in Kind its market value on the date of deposit may be made in the Revenue court to the account of the landlord .The court will conduct summary enquiry and find out correctness of the rent deposited .if the court finds that any further sum is due it will allow the cultivating tenant time for depositing the rent.If the court adjudges that no further sum is due or if the cultivating tenant deposit the rent within the time allowed , the cultivating tenant shall be deemed to have paid the rent .Then he is entitled to the protection against the eviction .On the other hand , if the tenant failed to pay the rent within the time allowed by the court , the landlord may evict him as provided in sub-section (4). Tamilnadu Building(Lease and Rent) Control Act 1960:The reason for enacting rent control Legislation was , then prevailing conditions during the war period in 1941 .The strain of the World War II , the large scale exodus of the working people to the urban areas , the great demand for accomodation and rack renting were the factors for introducing Madras House Rent Control Order 1941 .It was introduced as a purely

temporary measure to meet an emergency .In order to cover the case of buildings for storage accommodation , the madras Godown Rent Control Order 1942 was passed later .These 2 control orders were re-issued in 1945 with certain changes as the Madras House Rent Control Order 1945 and Madras Non –Residential Building Rent Control Order 1945.Subsequently The Madras Building(Lease and Rent Control Act 1946 was passed and it came into force on 1 st October 1946 .The Act of 1946 was originally intended in force for two years only .Later this Act was replaced by the Madras Act XXV of 1949 .This Act was enacted to remain in force upto 30 th September 1951 .But by subsequent amendments its life was extended from time to time and ultimately the present Act (XVIII of 1960 ) was passed which itself was declared to be in force for a period of 5 years .But even the life of this Act was extended from time to time .Later this Act was made permanent in the Year 1973 .The Amendments have been made to this Act in 1973 and 1980 . The Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection) Act, 1955: As soon after the independence it was felt that the reforms of the land system is urgently needed in order to improve the standard of living of conditions of the tiller of the land .so the government passed a number of enactment in that direction .the first enactment passed in that direction was the Thanjavur Pannaiyal Protection Act 1952 .The next step taken by the Government for the protection of cultivating tenants is the passing of the The Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection) Act, 1955.This Act has been extended from time to time and it became permanent by virtue of the Act 8 of 1965 .

LANDLORD’S LIABILITY TO GIVE RECEIPT FOR RENT AND TENANT’S RIGHT TO DEPOSIT RENT II.

DEPOSIT OF RENT IN CERTAIN CASES (Tamilnadu Buildings Lease And Rent Control Act 1960) Sections 8& 9 of the Tamilnadu Buildings Lease And Rent Control Act 1960

deals with landlord’s liability to give receipt for rent and tenant’s right to deposit rent in certain cases respectively . Section 9(1) of the Act, which shall be attracted only in case where the landlord is known, but his address or the address of his authorised agent is not known to the tenant., he may deposit the rent lawfully payable to the landlord before the controller in such a manner as be prescribed and continue to deposit any rent which may subsequent became due until the address of the landlord or his agent become known to the tenant . Right of the Tenant to deposit in certain cases :The section read as below 9. (1) Where the address of the landlord or his authorized agent is not known to the tenant, he may deposit the rent lawfully payable to the landlord in respect of the certain building, before the Controller in such manner as may be prescribed, and continue to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, before the Controller and in the same manner until the address of the landlord or his authorized agent becomes known to the tenant. (2) The amount deposited under sub-section (3) or under sub-section (5) of section 8, or under sub-section (1). of this section may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the person held by the Controller to be entitled to the amount on application made by such person to the Controller in that behalf.

(3) Where any bona fide doubt or dispute arises as to the person who isjentitled to receive the rent for any building, the tenant may deposit such rent before such authority and in suck manner as may be prescribed and shall report to the antroller the circumstances under which such deposit made by him, and may continue to deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building before the same authority and in the same manner until the doubt is removed or the dispute is settled by the decision of a competent Court or by a settlement between the parties or until the Controller makes an order under clause (b) of sub-section (4). as the case may be. (4) (a) The Controller to whom a report is made under sub-section (3) shall, if satisfied that a bonafide doubt or dispute exists in the matter, direct that, pending removal of the doubt or settlement of the dispute as aforesaid, the deposit be held by the authority concerned. (b) If the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall forthwith order payment of the amount deposited to the landlord, (5) Where the Controller passes an order under clause (a) of sub-section (4), any amount deposited under sub-section (3) may be withdrawn only by ihe person who is declared by a competent Court to be entitled thereto, or in case the doubt or dispute is removed by a settlement between the parties, only by the person who is held by the Controller to be entitled to the amount or amounts in accordance with such settlement. In Section 8 of the Act, the procedure to be followed by the tenant is given step by step. An earlier step is a precondition for the next step. The tenant has to observe the procedure as prescribed in the statute. A strict compliance with the procedure is necessary. The tenant cannot straight away jump to the last step i.e. to deposit rent in court. The last step can come only after the earlier steps have been taken by the tenant.

Section 8 Of the Act landlord’s liability to give receipt for rent:Read as follows [(l) Every landlord who receives any payment towards rent or advance shall issue a receipt duly signed by him for the actual amount of rent or advance receipt received for rent by him.] (2) Where a landlord refuses to accept , or evades the receipt of, any rent lawfully payable to him by a tenant in respect of any building, the tenant may, by notice in writing, require the landlord to specify within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice by him, a bank into which the rent may be deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlord : Provided that such bank shall be one situated in the city, town or village in which the building is situated or if there is no such bank in such city, town or village, within S[five kilometres] of the limits thereof. Explanation.-It shall bc open to the landlord to specify from time to time by a written notice to the tenant and subject to the proviso aforesaid, a bank different from the one already specified by him under this sub-section (3) If the landlord specifies a bank as aforesaid, the tenant shall deposit the rent in the bank and.shal1 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 subsection (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. If the landlord refuses to accept or evades the receipt of rents, the tenant is given a system of remedies which he can resort to under the said provisions. There is ample safeguard made for the tenant in case the landlord refuses to receive the rent or evades the receipt of the rent.Every landlord who receives any payment towards rent or advance shall issue a receipt duly signed by him for the actual amount of rent or advance received by him, Sub-sections (2) to (5) ofSection 8 have remained the same except for a minor change in the proviso to Sub-section (2) in that for the words "three miles", the words "five kilometres" have been substituted by the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act XXIII of 1973. The implications of the provisions will be better appreciated if they stand extracted as below. Marudachala Udayar vs Dhandapani (1980) 1 MLJ 169 A. Where a landlord refuses to accept, or evades the receipt of any rent lawfully payable to him by a tenant in respect of any building, the tenant may, by notice in writing, require the landlord to specify within ten days from the date of receipt of the notice by him a bank into which the rent may be deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlord. B. Provided that such bank shall be one situated in the city, town or village in which the building is situated or if there is no such bank in such city, town or village, within five kilometres of the limits thereof. Explanation: It shall be open to the landlord to specify from time to time by a written notice to the tenant and subject to the proviso aforesaid, a bank different from the one already specified by him under this sub-section.

C. If the landlord specifies a bank as aforesaid, the tenant shall deposit the rent in the bank and shall continue to deposit in it any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building. D. . 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. E. If the landlord refuses to receive the rent remitted by money order under subsection (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. The Rent Control Act is a piece of social legislation designed to protect the tenant from eviction by landlords on frivolous, insufficient or purely technical grounds. Even as the Act allows eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent the proviso affords sufficient protection to the tenant against eviction if the tenant deposits the rent in accordance with the proviso. Sheo Narain vs Sher Singh 1980 AIR 138. P.Kumaresan vs Kalyani on 2 January, 2013 Madras High Court A mere running of the eye over the aforesaid decision would amply make the point clear that any pendente lite arrears also would pave the way for ordering eviction. A fortiori, the tenant cannot absolve himself from his liability to pay the rent under one pretext or other pending litigation as according to the precedent of the Honourable Apex Court, equitable considerations have no place. There is no question of treading on the tender feelings of the Court by portraying and parodying the alleged ill-health of the tenant as the reason for the non-payment of such huge arrears of rent. The tenant should have taken to cover his own back at least within a reasonable time

by complying with the conditional order though he was not as keen as mustard in meticulously and sedulously complying with Section 8 of the Act. E.Palanisamy v. Palanisamy (D) by LRs and others reported in (2003) 1 Scc 123 It was held that while the landlord is required to issue a notice of default, on refusal by the landlord to accept rent, the tenant is required to call upon the landlord by way of a notice to specify the name of a bank in which rent could be deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlord. If the landlord specifies the name of the bank to deposit the rent, there is an obligation on the part of the tenant to make the deposit of arrears of rent in the account of the landlord. However, if the landlord does not specify the name of a bank in spite of being called upon by the tenant through a notice, the tenant is required to send the amount of arrears through a money order to the landlord after deducting the commission payable on the money order. If the landlord still refuses to accept the rent, the tenant is entitled to file an application before the Rent Controller seeking permission to deposit the arrears of rent under subsection (5) of Section 8 of the Act. In Hakim And Co Represented By Its Partner Vs Radha Krishnan And Others 2001(1) Mlj 110 , the rent controller considered the case of the parties on the materials placed before him and found that the case of the landlord refused to receive rents for more than 2 years but tenants not taking steps to deposit rent in court invoking section 8 .held guily of default . There was wilful default committed by the tenant in the payment of the rents. Shankar vs Swaminathan on 4 June, 2014 Madras High Court RCOP filed under Section 9(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 praying for an order permitting the tenant to deposit the rent from the month of March 2006 to the credit of the Rent Control Petition and allow him to

continue to deposit the future rent. The said petition came to be filed based on the contention that, though the petitioner was making payment of rent for the petition premises to the predecessors of the first respondent and then to the first respondent recognising them to be the landlords, the second respondent had issued a notice to the tenant informing him that the rent should be paid to him and not to the first respondent, since, according to him, the property was the Trust property and the second respondent being the senior most member of the family was entitled to manage Trust and that due to the issuance of the said notice, the tenant did entertain a bonafide doubt as to who, between the respondents 1 and 2, was entitled to receive the rent for the petition premises. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has held that the Rent Controller committed an error in making a reference to a document, which was not produced before the court of the Rent Controller, to arrive at a conclusion that there was a bonafide dispute regarding title to the petition premises. Even if there is any such dispute, the Rent controller has to render a clear finding as to whether the dispute is a bonafide one or not. There is absence of sufficient evidence to prove that there was such a bonafide dispute between the first respondent, who is admittedly the landlord and the second respondent regarding title to the petition premises. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, on a proper re-appreciation of evidence and on proper application of the principles of law, came to a correct conclusion that the revision petitioner/tenant had not proved the existence of a bonafide dispute between the first respondent and the second respondent; that hence he was estopped from disputing the right of the first respondent as landlord to receive the rent and that the prayer for permission to deposit the rent deserved to be rejected. This court finds no defect or infirmity in the decree of the Rent Control Appellate Authority warranting interference with the same in exercise of its power of revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

Kr.Sathappan vs Ar.Renganayagi on 20 December, 2010 Madras High Court The learned Rent Controller considered the pleadings in the light of the evidence adduced by both parties. The learned Rent Controller was of the view that there were certain admissions made by the respondent in O.S.No.353 of 2004 pertaining to the payment of monthly rent. By referring to those admissions, the learned Rent Controller arrived at a conclusion that there was no willful default on the part of the petitioners. The learned Rent Controller also found that the petitioners have taken steps to deposit the rent. The second petitioner filed R.C.O.P.No.32 of 2005 under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and the amount was accordingly deposited. Accordingly, the plea regarding arrears of rent was negatived. Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 mandates that before filing an application to deposit rent, the tenant has to comply with sub-clauses 2,3 and 4 in succession. It is true that the second petitioner has produced copies of the cheques dated 02.09.2005 in R.C.O.P.No.32 of 2005. Those cheques were drawn long after the institution of the eviction proceedings. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners have called upon the respondent to specify the bank into which the rent could be deposited. Similarly, as a second step, they have not sent the rent by money order after deducting the money order commission. It was only in the event of complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 8(2), 8(3) and 8(4), the petitioners can invoke Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Any deposit made

under

Section

8(5)

of

the Tamil Nadu Buildings

(Lease

and RentControl) Act, 1960, without complying with the earlier provisions of Section 8, will not convert the willful default into one of simple default. The Civil Revision

Petition dismissed by highcourt by confirming the judgment under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Shantilal M. Bhayani vs Shanti Bai (1997) 1 MLJ 681. The Rent Controller after considering the evidence in the case passed an order of eviction on 30.11.1978. M/s. Bhupendra Plastic Industries represented by Shantilal M.Bhayani, filed H.R.C. No. 214 of 1976 for deposit of rent under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, alleging the respondent herein refused to receive the rents sent by money order and cheques. This H.R.C. No. 214 of 1976 was also disposed along with the main H.R.C. No. 2977 of 1975 on 30.11.1978 by a common order. On the CRP filled by the petitioner High court held that it cannot be said that a wilful default can be construed to be only a simple question of fact. Therefore do not find anything wrong in going into the question as to whether the default committed by the petitioner is wilful default or not. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, its viewed that there is no justification for interfering with the orders passed by the courts below. In the circumstances, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs S. Sundaram v. V.R. Pattabhiraman . In the said case, the Apex Court has laid down certain criteria to find out whether a default can be treated as wilful default or not. Four ingredients have been mentioned to constitute wilful default. In State of Jharkhand v. Ambay Cements, (2005) 1 SCC 368 : 2005 (1) CTC 223. The Supreme Court held as follows: "Whenever the statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to severe consequences, such requirement

would be mandatory. It is the cardinal rule of interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed. Danish Aarthi vs M. Abdul Kapoor on 28 January, 2009 Madras High Court The revision petitioner is Landlady, who filed R.C.O.P.No.13 of 1996 before the Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Virudhunagar, and prayed for ordering eviction of the tenant/respondent on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. 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. From the documents it is evident that after sending money order only, the Tenant requested the Landlady to specify the bank, within ten days of notice in writing. Admittedly the Tenant has sent the money order without following the above procedure, which was also returned. Therefore the mandatory conditions contained in the above provisions viz., Sections 8(2) to 8(4) are not followed by the Tenant before filing the application under section 8(5) of the Act. In view of violation of the said statutory provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, by the tenant before filing the application under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the application filed by the Tenant to deposit the rent before the Rent Controller, is not maintainable and hence the learned Rent Controller rightly dismissed R.C.O.P. The reversal of the said order by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A. is not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.In the result, C.R.P.(NPD) is allowed and the order passed in R.C.A is set aside and the matter 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. II.PAYMENT OR DEPOSIT OF RENT DURING THE PENDENCY OF PROCEEDINGS Section 12. (1) No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under section 10, shall be entitled to contest the application before the Rent Control Court under that section, or to prefer an appeal under section 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 appellate authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of the building up to date of payment or deposit and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may 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. (2) The deposit under Sub-section (1) shall be made within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed . (3)When there is any dispute as to the amount of Rent to be paid or to be deposited under sub-section (1) controller or the appellate authority as the case may be. Shall on an application made to him either by tenant or by the landlord and after making such inquiry as it deems necessary ,determine the rent to be paid or deposited . (4) If any tenant fails to pay or deposit the rent as aforesaid, the controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building.

(5) When any deposit is made under sub-section (1), , subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority in that behalf as the case may be . K. Perumal Chettiar vs V. Muthuswami AIR 1962 Mad 447 It is in-tended only to prevent defaulters from continuing in possession of the property taking advantage of the pendency of an application without at the same time performing their own part of the obligations. Secondly it does not cover grounds other than default of payment of rent, Abdul Rahaman Vs. Basheer Alam Taking note of the specific expressions contained in Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Act which is as follows:- " S.11 ( 4 ) :- If any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building." In the Tamil Nadu Act the Legislature had specifically mentioned only the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority as authorities before whom only the petition under Section 11(4) could be filed. Having regard to the views expressed by the Division Bench of this Court, the above petition is not maintainable, and the same is dismissed. Badrunnisa Begum vs H. Palani Ambalam And Anr (1977) 1 MLJ 362 Section. 11(1) is to the effect that no tenant against "whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 10 shall be entitled to contest the application before the Controller under that section or to prefer any appeal under Section 23 against any order made by 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 of -deposit and continues to pay or to deposit any rent which may 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. P. Lachiram vs K.N. Kumaresan (1979) 2 MLJ 135 It is evident from this that the payment of arrears is a condition precedent to the hearing of the tenant on the objections raised by him .If the tenant commit a willful default even during the prendency of proceeding despite several opportunities given to him by the Rent controller and Appellate Authority , he is liable to be evicted under sec 11(4).It is only to safeguard the interests of the landlords in relation to such recalcitrant tenants that a provision like Section 11(4) has been introduced C. Swaminatha Mudaliar Sons, A ... vs S.M. Singaram And Sinniah (1982) 1 MLJ 418 Section 11(4) of Act, 1960 runs as follows: If any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid (as provided under Section 11(1)) the controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the buildings. As stated already, in I.A. No. 579 of 1977, the tenants raised all possible contentions and the Rent Controller framed five points and recorded his findings and finally directed that a sum of Rs. 37,000 and odd should be paid within the time allowed failing which the eviction petition shall stand allowed. Admittedly, the tenants did not deposit the amount but has preferred an appeal and then a revision against the order in I.A. No. 579 of 1977. The Rent Controller has inquired into the dispute regarding the quantum of rent to 1 paid and, after receiving a lot of documentary evidence,

determined the amount to be paid and gave the tenants time for paying it. Though Section 11(3) of the Act states that the determination is only summary in nature, the Rent Controller has gone through the question in depth and ascertained the arrears in his elaborate order. There are, the tenants should have deposited the determined amount into Court within the time granted as otherwise, the eviction petition will stand allowed as ordered by the Rent Controller. The fact that the tenants have taken up the matter in appeal will not help them and they should have deposited the amount without prejudice to their contentions. The Division Bench rulins; of this Court reported in Kuppanna Chettiar v. Ramachnndrari , is a direct authority for the proposition that the subsequent payment of arrears will not help the tenants. Though this reported case was one arising under the Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, the ratio is wholly applicable in this case also. The result is, the subsequent payment lone after the expiry of the time granted to the tenants will not at all absolve them from the consequence of the order of eviction. P.S. Hussain vs C.A. Kabeer (1990) 1 MLJ 85 Applying the decision reported in Ranganathan, C. v. M. Suri 100 L.W. 708, when an order is passed under Section 11 (4) of the Act, it cannot be said that the said order is wrong. Even assuming the quantum of rent which the appellate authority directed the tenant to pay is not correct, it is clear that atleast the difference between Rs. 146 and Rs. 20 per mensem for the period 28.2.1986 till the end of August, 1986, the tenant ought to have paid to the landlord, if he wanted to contest the R.C.O.P. He did not do so. Therefore, the direction given by the appellate authority to the tenant to pay, to the extent stated above, if not the entire sum of Rs. 7,479-43, cannot be said to be wrong. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. However, the petitioner tenant is given three months time to vacate the premises provided he filed within two weeks from this date an undertaking affidavit that he would vacate within the said period without resorting to any further litigation.

III.

DEPOSIT OF RENT (The Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants (Protection) Act, 1955)

The Section reads as follows : (3) (a) A cultivating tenant may deposit in Court the rent or, if the rent be payable in kind, its market value on the date of doposit, to the account of the landlord (i) in the case of rent accrued due subsequent to the 31st March 1954, within a month after the commence merit of this Act ; (ii) in the case of rent accrued due after the commencement of this Act within a month after the date on which the rent accrued due, (b) The Court shall cause notice of the deposit to be issued to the landlord and determine, after a summary enquiry whether the amount deposited represents the correct amount of rent due from the cultivating tenant. If the Court finds that any further sum is due, it shall allow the cultivating tenant such time as it may consider just and reasonable having regard to the relative circumstances of the landlord and the cultivating tenant for depositing such further sum as the Court may allow. If the Court adjudges that no further sum is due, or if the cultivating tenant deposits with in the time allcwed such further sum as is ordered the court , the cultivating tenant shall be deemed to have paid the rent within the period specified in the last foregoing subsection. If, having to deposit a further sum,the cultivating tenant fails to do so within th e time allowed by the Court, the landlord may evict the cultivating tenants as provided in sub-section (4) (c) The expression " Court " in this sub-section means the Court which passed the decrees or order for eviction or, where there is no such decree or order then Revenue Divisional Officer. I

'[Explanation 2[(I)] In relation to the shencottah taluk of the Tirunelveli district, the expression ccommencement of this Act' wherever it, occurs in clause (a) of this subsection shall be construed as referring -to the date, on which the [Tamil Nadu] Cultivating Tenants ' Protection and Payment of Fair Rent (Amendment) Act, 1961 is first published in the*Fort St.George Gazette.] [Explnnation II.-In relation to the added territories, the expression 'rent accrued due subsequent - to the 3 1 st March 1954 occurring in sub-clause (i)of clause(a) of this sub-section shall be construed as referring to rent accured due during a period of 'one month before the date on which the [Tamil Nadu] Cultivating Tenants protection and payment of fair Rent (Extension to Added terrirories]was first published in the *Fort St.george Gazette . [Explanation III-In relation to the Kanyakumari district, the expression 'rent accrued due subsequent to the , 31st Mar-h 1954' occurring in sub-clause (i) of clause (a)of this sub-section shall be construed as referring to the rent accrued due during a period of one month before the date on which the cultivating Tenants Protection and Payment of Fair Rent (Extension to Kanyakumari district) Act, 1972, is first published in the Tamil Nadu Goverrment Gazette]. Chinnamarkathian alias Muthu Gounder and another v. Ayyavoo alias Periana Gounder and others,(SCC) Under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 a landlord could make an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer for eviction of the tenant, inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent Sub-section (4) (b) of Section 3 further provided that the Revenue Divisional Officer was to pass an order allowing the cultivating tenant reasonable time to deposit the arrears of rent. It was further provided that "if the cultivating tenant deposits the same as directed, he shall be deemed to have paid the rent under Sub-section (3)(b). If the cultivating tenant fails

to deposit the same as directed, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass an order for eviction". The Supreme Court held that at the time when Revenue Divisional Officer allows time to the cultivating tenant to deposit the arrears of rent he could not simultaneously pass a conditional order of eviction which is to take effect on a default to occur in future. It was observed that as the orders in that case directing eviction were passed in contravention of the express provision of the clause, the same were without jurisdiction. Kuppana Chettiar And Anr. vs K. Ramachandran (1981) 1 MLJ 136 The landlord, filed the petition for eviction of the petitioners under Section 3(4) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants, Protection Act, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that they had committed wilful default in the payment of rent. both the parties made a joint endorsement and the petitioners agreed to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,000 in full satisfaction of the rent for the two years, on or before 7th August, 1979, and that in default thereof eviction could be ordered. Authorised Officer passed an order of eviction,on as direction was not complied with and hence the respondent-landlord filed a petition. The petitioners sought an interim stay of the execution of the order of eviction .This Court granted an order of interim stay of the execution of the order of eviction on condition that the petitioners deposited the sum of Rs. 9,000 in the Court below within two weeks. This order was complied with and this resulted in the order of interim stay being made absolute till the disposal of the civil revision petition. Mariyayee Ammal vs Janab Mohammed Sheriff (1988) 2 MLJ 196 On observation with regard to the procedure adapted by the Revenue Court in the present case found that it is not desirable for the Revenue Court to close petitions for eviction finally with orders of deposit without concluding the proceedings by passing final orders in the main proceeding itself as contemplated by the Section. It will be

more desirable and appropriate for the Revenue Court to fix a date for calling the main petition beyond the time given to the tenant for depositing the arrears of rent. On that date, if the main petition is called and the Revenue Court finds that the tenant has not deposited the arrears of rent as directed by the earlier order, then the Revenue Court shall pass an order of eviction in the main proceedings. If on the other hand the tenant had complied with the. order of deposit, the petition for eviction should be dismissed. Instead of doing so, as in the present case, if the Revenue Court closes the main petition with an order of deposit without specifying the next calling date, the landlord is obliged to file an application and bring the matter again before the Revenue Court in which notice has again before the Revenue Court in which notice has to be necessarily issued to the tenant once again. The main proceedings remain unconcluded by a mere order of deposit. That is not the procedure contemplated by the Section. The Revenue Court in all cases of eviction under Section 3(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenant's Protection Act should on arriving at a finding that the tenant is in arrears pass in the first instance an order directing the tenant to make a deposit within a particular time and post the matter again to a date beyond the time granted to the tenant. On such date, if it finds that the tenant has not made the deposit, the Revenue Court shall pass an order of eviction. On the facts of this case there is no illegality in the order .Thereby the revision petitions fail and are, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Ramamurthy And Ors. vs V. Perumal (1990) 2 MLJ 494 The petitioners applied for eviction of the respondent under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act. The Revenue Court passed an order on 9.4.1987 directing the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.2647.55 being the arrears of rent on or before 9.6.1967. The respondent did not make the deposit in time. The

petitioners filed I.A.372 of 1987 for passing an order of eviction as the respondent failed to comply with the direction given by the Revenue Court by its earlier order. The application was filed in September, 1987. The respondent filed a counter affidavit in October 1988 in which he stated that he had deposited the money as per the orders of the Revenue Court on 4-8-1987 under Challan No.843. He produced a xerox copy of the Challan along with the counter affidavit. The Revenue Court has taken the view that the deposit having been made even before the filing of I.A. 372 of 1987 and there being no explanation on the part of the petitioners for not having sought an order of eviction as soon as the respondent committed default in making the deposit, the petitioners are not entitled to an order of eviction as prayed for by them. Consequently, the application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed by the Revenue Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this revision petition. It is rather strange that the Revenue Court should observe that the petitioners ought to have filed an application for an order of eviction as soon as the time granted by the Revenue Court for deposit of the money had lapsed. It is certainly open to the petitioners to file the petition for passing an order of eviction at any time after the commission of default on the part of the respondent. There is no time limit prescribed by the Act or any Rule, within which the petitioners ought to move the Revenue Court for an order of eviction. The respondent has not chosen even to attempt to give an explanation for his default in complying with the order of the Revenue Court In the counter affidavit, he has merely stated as a fact that he made the deposit on 4.8.87 alleging that it was as per the orders of the Revenue Court. Certainly, it was not in accordance with the orders of the Revenue Court. The deposit was made long after the period prescribed by the Revenue Court expired. Hence there can be no doubt that the respondent has

failed to comply with the order of the Revenue Court. Under Section 3(4)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, the Revenue Court may allow the cultivating tenant such time as it considers just and reasonable for depositing the arrears of rent and if the cultivating tenant fails to deposit the same as directed, the Revenue Court shall pass an order for eviction. The language used in the section is mandatory and the only option available to the Revenue Court is to pass an order of eviction. In Kandan Moopan v. Arumugha Mudaliar (1963) 1 MLJ 182 It was held that where there was a default by non-compliance with a direction to deposit the arrears within the time fixed by the Revenue Court it would be beyond the power of the Revenue Court to extend time. The Sub-section clearly states that in such an event, namely, failure on the part of the tenant to deposit the arrears within the time fixed, the Revenue Divisional Officer should pass an order for eviction K. Ramdoss vs Rukmani Ammal 1997 (2) CTC 703, (1998) IMLJ 48 In this case, the petitioner has no proof that he is a cultivating tenant and he is contributing his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of any land belonging to another, under a tenancy agreement, express or implied. It is contended that the heir of the petitioner namely his wife is entitled according to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, since she also contributes her own physical labour. This definition is also not satisfied, since there is absolutely no proof on the part of the petitioner's wife that she is contributing her own physical labour for the cultivation of the land in question. The question of deposit of the rent will arise only if the petitioner proves that he is a cultivating tenant. No proof is placed before the lower court or before this court that his name has been registered as the tenant under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Record of Tenancy Rights Act. Since the petitioner has not proved that he is a

cultivating tenant, he is not entitled to make a deposit of the rent arrears before the Special Deputy Collector and the Special Deputy Collector has rightly rejected the case that he does not satisfy Section 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act. The learned counsel relied on the definition of the "Cultivating Tenant" in Angu @ Angammal v. The Record Officer & Additional Tahsildar, Thanjavur and 3 Ors., 1988 T.N.L.J. 35 wherein Section 2(b) of the Act states that one should contribute his physical labour such as ploughing, sowing the seeds, taking away the weeds and also harvesting the products when the crop is ready for harvest. Unless a person proves that he so physically applied the body for the purpose of cultivating the land, he cannot go anywhere near the definition of Section 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955.The C.R.P. fails and is dismissed accordingly.Consequently C.M.P. is also dismissed. Baluchamy vs Srinivasan Ayyavaru (1975) 1 MLJ 30 This is a petition by the tenant against the order of the Authorised Officer, Land Reforms, Madurai, rejecting his application for deposit under Section 3 (3) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants' Protection Act, 1955. The petitioner is a tenant under the respondent in respect of an extent of 1 acre 50 cents in Thenkarai Village of Nilakottai Taluk. For the fasli year 1381, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 610 and filed an application under Section 3 (3) (a) for recording the deposits. The Authorised Officer accepted the contention of the respondent and held that the amount deposited by the petitioner did not represent the full or correct amount of rent due from him for fasli 1381, and therefore the deposit application was rejected. he wording of Clause (b) ofSection 3 (3), it is incumbent on the Authorised Officer to have granted he time even without a request from the tenant, when he finds that the

amount deposited by him (the petitioner) did 101 represent the correct amount, because, the correctness or otherwise of he deposit would only follow the finding of the Authorised Officer that the amount payable by the tenant is more than the Amount that is deposited. It is for this reason that the section reads to the effect that, (b) ...If the Court finds that any further sum is due, it shall allow the cultivating tenant such time as it may consider just and reasonable.... The Authorised Officer had not given the petitioner any time for depositing the balance amount due in respect of fasli 1381. The order of the Authorised Officer is, therefore, liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. The Authorised Officer will now take-the application on file and grant the petitioner such time as he may consider just and reasonable to deposit the money and pass such further orders as per the law. R. Singaravelu Pillai vs S.B. Subramania Gurukkal And Anr (1984) 1 MLJ 298 The cultivating tenant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. It appears that the first respondent landlord filed an application for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in payment of rents, on 1st September, 1981. Notice of the application was served on the petitioner heroin on 4th September, 1981, giving 29th September, 1981 as the date of hearing. On 29th September, 1981, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner tenant. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned from time to time and it appears from the records that the petitioner herein appeared on 16th October, 1981, and sought for time to engage a counsel. The matter was adjourned to 13th November, 1981, finally. Again, it was adjourned to 17th November, 1981. When the Revenue Court found that the petitioner had neither filed vakalat nor appeared before Court, the petitioner was set ex parte on 17th November, 1981, and the matter was adjourned for filing of proof of affidavit to 20th November,

1981. On 20th November, 1981, proof of affidavit was filed and again the petitioner was called absent and a preliminary order was passed on 24th November, 1981. In the preliminary order, it was found that, the petitioner was liable to pay the arrears of rent as claimed by the landlord, the first respondent herein, and the preliminary order directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears on or before 7th "December, 1981. In the event of default, an order of eviction was directed to follow. there was a further direction to call the application on 8th December, 1981. In the meanwhile it appears that the petitioner preferred I.A. No. 128 of 1981 to set aside the preliminary order, dated 24th November, 1981. In that application, a conditional order was passed directing the petitioner to deposit 50 percent, of the arrears. Since that was not complied with by the petitioner, that application, was rejected on 5th February, 1982. As stated earlier, following the preliminary order, on 8th December, 1981, the matter was taken up and the Revenue Court passed the following Order: This is a petition filed under Section 3(4) (a) of Act (XXV of 1955) for evicting the respondent from the petitioner's lands for non-payment of lease rent for Fasli 1388, 1389 and 1390. On 24th November, 1981, a Preliminary Order was passed directing the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 9,730.20 together with costs of Rs. 10 on or before 7th December, 1981. Respondent was absent. No payment or deposit was also made. In the circumstances the respondent has rendered himself liable to be evicted from the petitioner's lands. He will stand evicted from the petitioner's lands. He shall hand over peaceful possession of the lands to the petitioner. The petition is allowed. If the cultivating tenant deposits the sum as directed, he shall be deemed to have paid the rent under sub-section, (3) (by. If the cultivating tenant fails to deposit the sum as directed, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall pass an order of eviction.

In the light of the above extracted provision, the order of the Revenue Court cannot be said to illegal calling for interference under Section 115, of the Code of Civil Procedure. there are no merits in the. Civil Revision Petition and consequently, it is dismissed CONCLUSION : In Tamilnadu ,Tamilnadu Buildings(Lease And Rent)Control Act 1960 followed and yet to adopt the Modern Rent Legislation .Rent control laws have stood the test of time even though they have not undergone requisite changes from the time they were introduced in the post-World War-II era. Although a guiding policy exists in the form of the MRCL, it is yet to be adopted. These laws, primarily under the legislative competence of the State Government, need to be considerably evaluated and modified to suit the present circumstances. Hopefully, the importance of these laws will be recognised and enough attention should be rendered to them by the legislature and judiciary so as to make the system of rent control a successful mechanism.