- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Dharani Ammal v. P.J Raphal
Summary of Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
The landlady is the revision petitioner. She filed an eviction petition under Section 10(2)(1) of the Rent Control Act alleging that the respondent (tenant) committed wilful default in payment of rent from February 1987 to October 1988. The respondent asserted long-term tenancy (thirty years), denied wilful default, and claimed that rent up to January 1987 had been received by the landlady's agent. According to the respondent, thereafter, during pendency of a suit in the City Civil Court (O.S. No. 117 of 1987), the landlady's agent told the respondent to pay rent to the lessee of the premises; the lessee refused to accept rent and directed the respondent to approach the landlady's agent to settle disputes. The respondent states he attempted to pay by demand draft (dated 7.1.1989) and earlier by money order, but the payments were not accepted or were returned on account of pendency of proceedings. The rent controller dismissed the eviction petition; the appellate authority confirmed that finding. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding that there was no wilful default, the landlady filed the present civil revision petition. The revising court examined documentary exhibits (Ex.R-5, Ex.R-6, Ex.R-7) showing that rent for multiple months was accrued and later sent in lumpsum, and it reviewed the lower courts' findings before reaching its decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the respondent/tenant committed "wilful default" in payment of rent within the meaning applied by the courts and the cited Supreme Court authority, such as to warrant eviction under Section 10(2)(1) of the Rent Control Act.
- Whether payment of arrears (by money order or demand draft) before or during proceedings, or representations by the landlady's agent to pay a lessee who refused to accept rent, relieve the tenant from the charge of wilful default.
Arguments of the Parties
Landlady / Revision Petitioner (as represented by counsel)
- Reliance on documentary evidence (Ex.R-5) to show that the tenant accrued rent for a number of months (February 1987 to September 1988) and therefore did not properly tender monthly rent; this conduct demonstrates there was no proper tender and amounts to wilful default.
Respondent / Tenant
- Asserted status as tenant of the premises for thirty years and denied committing wilful default.
- Claimed rent up to January 1987 had been received by the landlady's agent; thereafter, because a suit (O.S. No. 117 of 1987) was pending, the agent told him to pay rent only to the lessee, who refused to receive it and instead directed him back to the landlady's agent to settle disputes.
- States he attempted to pay: (a) sent rent by money order which was refused; (b) sent entire arrears by demand draft dated 7.1.1989 which was not received and returned on account of proceedings; (c) when he tendered entire arrears the petitioner refused to receive it.
- Argued that because he tendered the arrears (via demand draft / money order) and because the landlady or her agent prevented receipt, he should not be held to have wilfully defaulted.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, 98 L.W. 49 | The court stated that "wilful default" means default that is intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious, with full knowledge of the legal consequences; and that if a tenant had committed default but paid the entire rent before suit filing, the cause of action for eviction based on arrears may vanish. | The revising court applied the definition of "wilful default" from this precedent to conclude that the tenant's deliberate failure to pay monthly rent and his accrual of multiple months' rent (later sent lump-sum) amounted to wilful default. The court also considered the principle that payment of arrears before filing can remove cause of action, but found that here the tenant had not shown proper timely tender or sufficient cause preventing timely payment, so the precedent supported a finding of wilful default and justified allowing the revision and ordering eviction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the documentary evidence (specifically Ex.R-5, Ex.R-6 and Ex.R-7) and the chronology of payments. Ex.R-6 showed that rent for February 1987 to September 1987 had been sent on 9.11.1987, and Ex.R-7 showed that the tenant subsequently sent rent for four months. From these exhibits the court observed that the tenant had accrued rent for several months and then remitted it in lumpsum rather than paying each month in time. The court considered the respondent's contention that the landlady or her agent had directed payments to a lessee who refused to accept them, but found this contention unsupported by acceptable evidence.
The court emphasized the tenant's duty to ensure monthly rent is paid on time to the landlady and, if the landlady refused receipt, to adopt the statutory modes of tender prescribed by the Act. The court found the tenant had not employed these alternative modes or otherwise demonstrated that he was prevented by sufficient cause beyond his control from making timely payments. Applying the Supreme Court's characterization of 'wilful default' in Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman (intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious default with knowledge of legal consequences), the court concluded that the tenant's conduct—deliberately failing to pay rent monthly and only sending lump-sum payments later—constituted wilful default.
The revising court also considered the lower courts' findings (the rent controller and appellate authority had both found no wilful default). The court analyzed the timeline of payments and the lack of satisfactory evidence supporting the tenant's countervailing account, and concluded that the concurrent findings were incorrect and should be set aside.
Holding and Implications
CIVIL REVISION PETITION ALLOWED; EVICTION ORDERED
Holding (direct effect): The court allowed the landlady's civil revision petition, set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below that there was no wilful default, and ordered eviction of the respondent. The tenant was given three months' time to vacate. The court ordered no costs.
Implications: The decision reverses the lower courts' findings and results directly in eviction of the tenant. The opinion applies the Supreme Court's definition of "wilful default" to the facts and finds that accrual of multiple months' rent and remittance in lumpsum without showing sufficient cause or use of prescribed statutory modes of tender constitutes wilful default. The opinion does not state that it sets any novel legal precedent beyond applying the cited authority; it addresses the parties' rights in this particular dispute and the direct consequence is eviction with three months' time to vacate.
1. Landlady is the revision petitioner.
2. The petitioner filed eviction petition under Section 10(2)(1) of the Rent Control Act on the ground that the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent from February, 1987 to October, 1988. The respondent contends that he is the tenant in respect of the petition mentioned premises for the past thirty years and he never committed wilful default and the rent upto January, 1987 was received by the agent of the landlady and thereafter, as the suit was pending in the City Civil Court in O.S.No. 117 of 1987, the landlady's agent represented that the rent should be paid only to the lessee of the petitioner to whom the petition mentioned premises was also granted on lease and the lessee was not prepared to receive the rent and directing the respondent to contact the landlady's agent for settlement of the disputes and insisting upon delivery of possession. The respondent was not aware of the scheme behind the petitioner and the lessee who filed the present petition and when the respondent contracted his counsel with regard to payment of rent, he was advised to send the rent by demand draft and accordingly, the entire arrears was sent by demand draft dated 7.1.1989 which was not received and sent back informing about the pendency of the proceedings. The respondent further contends that the petitioner attempted to deprive the entire tenancy of the respondent with ulterior motive and the respondent was obliged to file O.S.No. 117 of 1987 for injunction and when the respondent tendered the entire arrears, the petitioner refused to receive it and so, there is no wilful default in payment of rent on the part of the respondent.
3. The learned rent controller dismissed the petition which was confirmed by the appellant authority. Both the courts below have found that there is no wilful default.
4. Aggrieved against the concurrent finding, the landlady has come forward with the present civil revision petition.
5. The lower appellate court found that before the first hearing, the tenant paid the entire arrears of rent by means of demand draft and prior to that also, the tenant had sent the rent by money order which was refused and so, it cannot be stated that there is wilful default on the part of the tenant.
6. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that under Ex.R-5, the tenant had sent the rent accruing for number of months, i.e., February, 1987 to September, 1988 and thereafter, he sent by money order and so, it cannot be stated that there was proper tender on the part of the tenant.
7. On a perusal of Ex.R-5, it is seen that the rent from February, 1987 to September, 1987 had been sent under Ex.R-6 on 9.11.1987 and under Ex.R-7, the tenant sent the rent for four months. These things reveal that the tenant was not properly tendering the rent and he has accrued the rent for number of months and sent it thereafter in lumpsum. Even with regard to the contentions raised by the respondent in the counter that there was a representation by the landlady to pay the rent to the lessee and the lessee was not prepared to receive the rent, but directed the tenant to contact the landlady's agent to settle the disputes is not acceptable and convincing. There is no acceptable evidence in that aspect. The respondent became the tenant under the petitioner and was paying rent to her. It is the duty of the tenant to see that every month's rent is paid in time to the landlady. When the landlady refused to receive the rent, the tenant ought to have taken steps to tender the rent to her by the modes prescribed under the Act. Even the tenant has not paid the rent regularly and he had accrued it for number of months and then only sent it. In the absence of any agreement between the parties. This act amounts to wilful default and it cannot be stated that there was proper tender on the part of the tenant.
8. The Supreme Court has held in Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman 98 L.W. 49, that, A consensus of the meaning of the words wilful default' appears to indicate that default, in order to be wilful must be intentional deliberate, calculated and conscious, with full knowledge, of legal consequences following therefrom.
The Apex Court has further held that, Where the tenant had committed a default but he had paid the entire rent well before, the filing of the suit by the landlord and in fact, the suit for eviction from a non-residential premises was filed by the landlord not on the ground of pending arrears, but to penalise the tenant for having defaulted' in the past, such a suit cannot be entertained because once the entire dues are paid to the landlord the cause of action for filing of a suit completely vanishes.
In the instant case, the tenant has not paid the rent for February, 1987 in March, 1987 and for the subsequent months in time. He had accrued the rent for a number of months and sent it by money order in lump sum. He has not shown that he was prevented by sufficient cause or circumstance beyond his control from paying the rent. The evidence of R.W.1 is that he was chasing the petitioner from pillar to post, but she refused to receive the rent. But, he has not substantiated his contention by letting in any acceptable evidence. It is the duty of the tenant to adopt the course open to him under the provisions of the Act for payment of rent. He has not done so, He waited till November, 1988 and then sent the rent for February, 1987 to October, 1988 by accruing, it. He had not attempted to send the rent in time Having deliberately failed to pay the rent in time, he is not entitled to contend that he was properly paying the rent. So, the deliberate action on the part of the respondent in not paying the rent in time is sufficient to constitute wilful default unless it is shown that he was prevented by sufficient cause beyond his control from paying the rent. Applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision citied in Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabhiraman 98 L.W. 49, I am of the view that there was no proper tender on the part of the tenant and he had committed wilful default in payment of rent. So, the finding of the courts below is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Eviction is ordered. Time for vacating is three months.
Alert