No doubt, the respondent is found to have issued a notice marked as Ex. R2 calling upon the petitioners to furnish their bank account particulars with a view to deposit the rent in the said account and however, according to the respondent, inasmuch as the same had not been responded by the petitioners, he was necessitated to deposit the rent in the rent control proceedings. As rightly put forth by the petitioners' counsel, considering the strained relationship between the parties, the respondent should have been more careful in paying the rent and merely because at one point of time, the petitioners had been collecting the rents in lumpsum that would not give a leverage to the respondent in not paying the rent regularly when it becomes due and also punctually and therefore, as determined by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the respondent having failed to take proper steps to deposit the rent as provided under Section 8 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and particularly, when the petitioners are not posted with the information as to the alleged deposit of the rent by the respondent in the civil suit proceeding and the rent control proceedings with a view to enable the petitioners to withdraw the same, in such view of the matter, the alleged deposit of the rent by the respondent in the abovesaid proceedings would not amount to a valid tender of the rent and the same had been acceded to by the petitioners.
Print Page
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)
C.R.P.(NPD) (MD) No. 709 of 2008
Decided On: 04.01.2019
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
T. Ravindran, J.
No comments:
Post a Comment