1999 (7) TMI 717

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Church of South India Trust Association for purchase of the premises in dispute. It is stated that the appellants paid a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs towards the part payment of consideration amount under the said agreement. It further appears that subsequently certain disputes arose with regard to the mode of payment of the balance amount and as a result of which on 12th April, 1984 the Church repudiated the agreement. On 29th August, 1986 the tenant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement referred to above. While the aforesaid suit was pending, the Church on 12.11.86 executed a sale deed in respect of premises in dispute in favour of first respondent, namely, V.P. Venuguduswami. After purchasing the aforesaid premises the purchase....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....195-3196/93. The High Court allowed the Revision Petitions and that is how the tenant is in appeal before us. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the facts that the tenant after having entered into an agreement with the erstwhile owner of the building paid considerable amount of money towards part performance of the agreement and his further filing of suit in the Civil Court for specific performance of the agreement constituted sufficient cause under Sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act for non-depositing the arrears of rent within time, as well as monthly rent which became due in respect of building and, therefore, this Court may, after condoning the delay, permit the appellant to deposit the entire arrears of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. 3. A Perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that where an application for eviction has been filed against a tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent the tenant is required (i) to deposit all the arrears of rent due in respect of the building with the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be; (ii) the tenant is further required to pay or deposit the rent which may subsequently fall due in respect of the building until the termination of the proceedings; (iii) the said deposit of rent is required to be paid or deposited within time provided and in the manner prescribed; and (iv) if the deposit of rent is not made, the Controller or the appellate autho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... contrary, the tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant before the Rent Controller. The tenant's subsequent deposit of the arrears of rent before the appellate authority being requirement of law for hearing the appeal on merits, cannot be treated as bona fide deposit. Further, the tenant did not deposit the month to month rent as required under Section 11(1) of the Act and reiterated his stand that he is a landlord and not a tenant of the premises in dispute. Even before the High Court it was not the case of the tenant that under some bona fide mistake he could not deposit the arrears and month to month rent and, therefore, delay may be condoned. It appears that, after the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit fi....