- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
V. Krishna Mudaliar v. Lakshmi Ammal .
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent-landlord purchased the disputed premises on 30-3-1977. At that time, the appellant was already in occupation as a monthly tenant paying Rs 60 as rent. After purchasing the property, the respondent filed a civil suit alleging that the appellant had surrendered possession and later trespassed into the premises. The appellant maintained that he had never surrendered possession and remained a tenant. Both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed the respondent’s suit.
Subsequently, by notice dated 12-8-1981, the respondent demanded arrears of rent for the entire period from 30-3-1977 to 12-8-1981 and, thereafter, instituted an eviction petition under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 on the ground of wilful default. The Rent Controller allowed the application, the appellate authority affirmed the decision, and the High Court dismissed the tenant’s revision. The present appeal is by the tenant against those concurrent findings.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the tenant’s failure to pay rent from 30-3-1977 to 12-8-1981 constituted “wilful default” under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
- Whether, in the circumstances, the tenant was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 10(2)(i) granting time to pay arrears and thereby avoid eviction.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The default in payment of rent was not wilful because the respondent refused to recognise the appellant as a tenant and would not accept rent pending the civil litigation.
- Under the proviso to Section 10(2)(i), the Rent Controller ought to have granted up to fifteen days’ time for payment; in any event, the appellant deposited the entire arrears before the Controller in October 1981, within about one month of the eviction petition.
- The lower courts failed to consider the background of the respondent’s unsuccessful suit labelling the appellant a trespasser, which explained the non-payment of rent.
Respondent's Arguments
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court focused on whether the tenant’s default was “wilful” within the meaning of Section 10(2)(i) and its accompanying proviso and explanation. It noted:
- The respondent had earlier pursued civil proceedings asserting that the appellant was a trespasser, a stance that necessarily implied refusal to accept rent from the appellant as tenant.
- In the reply to the notice dated 12-8-1981, the appellant explained that rent was unpaid only because the respondent denied the tenancy and refused to accept rent until the civil litigation concluded.
- The appellant deposited the full arrears with the Rent Controller within one month after the eviction petition was filed, demonstrating bona fide intention to pay.
Considering these “peculiar facts and circumstances,” the court concluded that the default could not be characterised as wilful. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to the statutory protection of the proviso to Section 10(2)(i), and the eviction petition should have been rejected.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; eviction application dismissed; judgments of the courts below set aside; no order as to costs.
The immediate consequence is that the appellant remains in possession and the eviction proceeding is dismissed. The decision turns on the specific factual matrix and statutory proviso, and the court did not articulate any broader precedent beyond the application of Section 10(2)(i) to similar fact situations.
Order
1. This is tenant's appeal. Respondent-landlord filed eviction petition against the appellant under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (the Act) on the ground that the tenant committed wilful default in the payment of rent. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller. The appellate court upheld the findings of the Rent Controller. The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant.
2. The respondent purchased the premises in dispute on 30-3-1977. It is not disputed that at that time the appellant was occupying the said premises as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs 60. The respondent filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the appellant alleging that after the purchase of the property by him the appellant surrendered the possession of the premises to him but later on trespassed into the property. The appellant, in the suit, contended that he was a tenant in the property and had never surrendered possession of the building to anyone. The suit was dismissed. The appeal filed by the respondent against the said order was also dismissed.
3. The respondent served a notice dated 12-8-1981 on the appellant demanding arrears of rent for the period from 30-3-1977 to 12-8-1981. Section 10(2)(i) and the proviso thereunder which are relevant are as under:
“10. Eviction of tenants.— (1) A tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this section or Sections 14 to 16:
Provided that nothing contained in the said sections shall apply to a tenant whose landlord is the Government:
Provided further that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Controller shall decide whether the denial or claims is bona fide and if he records a finding to that effect, the landlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil court and the Court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in the said sections, notwithstanding that the Court finds that such denial does not involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded.
(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied —
(i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building, within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable, or
Provided that in any case falling under clause (i) if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant's default to pay or tender rent was not wilful, he may, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 11, give the tenant a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days, to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord up to the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or tender, the application shall be rejected.
Explanation.— For the purpose of this sub-section, default to pay or tender rent shall be construed as wilful, if the default by the tenant in the payment or tender of rent continues after the issue of two months' notice by the landlord claiming the rent.”
It is not disputed that in October 1981 the appellant deposited all the arrears of rent before the Rent Controller.
4. The only contention raised before us by learned counsel for the appell-ant is that the default in the payment of rent by the appellant, if any, was not wilful and as such he was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 10(2)(i) of the Act. According to him the Rent Controller should have given time not exceeding 15 days to pay or tender the rent due by him to the land-lord. It is further contended that the appellant had in fact deposited the rent immediately after the ejectment application was filed by the respondent. We see force in the contention of the learned counsel. Despite the fact that the appellant was tenant of the property in dispute under the earlier owner, the respondent dragged the appellant to the civil court on the allegations that he was a trespasser. The civil court decided the controversy in favour of the appellant and held that he was a tenant in the property purchased by the respondent. In reply to the notice dated 12-8-1981 the appellant stated that he could not pay the rent because the respondent never accepted him as his tenant and refused to accept the rent till the proceedings were finally decided by the civil courts. In the reply it was further stated that the non-payment of rent was not due to any fault on the part of the appellant and he was prepared to pay the same in easy instalments. We are of the view that the courts below have not taken into consideration these facts in the right perspective. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the default in the payment of rent on the part of the appellant was not wilful. Admittedly the appellant had deposited the rent in the court of the Rent Controller within one month of the institution of the application.
5. We allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the courts below and dismiss the application filed by the respondent before the Rent Controller. No costs.
Alert