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, 7
1955:
B. Tamilnadu Building(Lease And Rent) Control Act 1960
8

8. I. Deposit Of Rent In Certain Cases 11

9. II. Payment Or Deposit Of Rent During The Pendency 21
Of Proceedings

10. III. Deposit Of Rent 24

11 Conclusion 31

I. 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 pre-
independence 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 second-
generation 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 markets 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.

Murphys 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 dont 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 .
LANDLORDS LIABILITY TO GIVE RECEIPT FOR RENT AND TENANTS
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 landlords liability to give receipt for rent and tenants 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 landlords 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 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.

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 sub-
section (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 sub-
section. 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 sub-
section 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.