Hopeful of renting out the premises and making profit out of the same, the respondent before this Court availed of a bank loan and put up a building. The respondent herein had let out the premises to the petitioner as per lease deed dated 20.2.2009 for running a Gymnasium. The monthly rent stipulated was Rs.2,58,750/-. When the tenant did not pay the rent, the landlord filed R.C.P.No.30/2013 for eviction under sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4) of the Rent Control Act. 2. Pointing out that the admitted arrears of rent be directed to be deposited by the tenant, the landlord moved a petition under section 12 of the Rent Control Act. Finding that admitted rent was in arrears, an order was passed against the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears of rent within the time stipulated under section 12 of the Rent Control Act. The tenant failed to do so. Consequently, the order of eviction followed.
3. An execution petition was filed by the landlord. In the execution petition, the tenant filed a petition under Order XXI Rule 26 seeking stay of execution on the ground that he wishes to avail remedy by way of appeal against the order of eviction. While that petition was pending consideration it is the admitted fact that the tenant moved an appeal before the appropriate authority against the order of eviction passed under section 12 of the Rent Control Act. The tenant moved a petition for stay of execution of the order before the appellate authority. The appellate authority after considering the rival contentions dismissed the petition. That was challenged before this Court by the tenant which was also dismissed.
4. The execution petition was proceeded with. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that petitions are filed before this Court and orders of stay obtained in O.P.(R.C.) No.115/2014. This Court by order dated 16.9.2014 directed the petitioner herein to deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on or before 17.9.2014 and another sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on or before 26.9.2014. That order was not complied with. The learned counsel pointed out that as on date about Rs.85,00,000/- is due towards arrears of rent and not a single paise is paid by the petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that there is no equity or justice or any law in favour of the tenant and this Court may not forestall the proceedings causing further injury and loss to the landlord.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then pointed out that he may not have much of a say in the matter except he prays for ten days' time to enable him to make an attempt to have the appeal against the orders of eviction pending before the appellate authority heard.
6. This is very strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent who pointed out that the tenant has availed of several opportunities to pay the arrears of rent and even inspite of positive orders from this Court directed him to pay certain amount, he did not comply with the same and therefore he deserves no leniency.
7. After having heard the counsel on both sides and after having perused the records it is seen that the tenant has made several attempts to forestall the proceedings before the execution court. However in O.P.(R.C.)No.115/2014 this Court by order dated 16.9.2014 directed the petitioner herein to deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on or before 17.9.2014 and another sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on or before 26.9.2014 as an interim measure. It is the admitted fact that the petitioner did not comply with the order.
8. An appeal was filed long ago. The petitioner could have taken adequate steps to have the appeal heard on merits. Instead, he went on filing petitions before this Court to forestall the proceedings. It is pointed out to this Court more than Rs.85,00,000/- is due towards arrears of rent. It is significant to notice that not a single paise is paid ever since the date of lease.
9. Of course, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that legality of the order of eviction is under challenge before the appellate authority and if the petitioner is able to succeed, then it will cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner.
10. The contention has no basis. This Court had granted adequate opportunity to the petitioner toward off execution proceedings but he did not avail of the opportunity. If as a matter of fact he succeeds before the appellate court, restitution proceedings are available to him. Since more than Rs.85,00,000/- is due, no further leniency be shown to the petitioner.
This petition is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
At this point of time, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that he may be given time till 29.10.2014 to vacate the premises. The request being reasonable, the petitioner is given time till 29.10.2014 to vacate the premises provided he files an affidavit before the execution court on or before 23.10.2014 unconditionally undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 29.10.2014. There will be no order as to costs.
vpv
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE