M. Bhaskar v. J. Venkatarama Naidu

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal by special leave arose from an order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 9-7-1996 in CRP No. 4290 of 1995. The matter arose under Section 10(2)(i) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. Eviction had been ordered by all three courts below primarily on the ground that the appellant-tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent from June 1990 to 31-10-1990.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the appellant-tenant was liable to eviction under Section 10(2)(i) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period June 1990 to 31-10-1990.
2. Whether the tenant’s contention of an alleged “contract to the contrary” regarding payment of rent (based on the landlord’s residence and collection through a power-of-attorney holder/relative) negated a finding of wilful default.
3. What is the effect of the tenant’s failure to follow the statutory procedure described by the Court (including the notice/bank-deposit route and approaching the Rent Controller) on the landlord’s entitlement to seek eviction for wilful default.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The respondent-landlord was staying in Hyderabad, and the landlord’s power-of-attorney holder was a close relative (brother-in-law-cum-maternal uncle).
• The appellant asserted that rent was paid whenever the landlord came to Madanpalle.
• On this basis, the appellant contended there was a “contract to the contrary,” implying the payment arrangement negated wilful default.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court found no substance in the appellant’s contention that the landlord’s residence in Hyderabad and collection through a power-of-attorney holder/relative established a “contract to the contrary.” The Court emphasized that, irrespective of the parties’ relationship, the appellant remained a tenant in occupation and therefore had an obligation to pay rent regularly; failure to do so constitutes wilful default.

The Court further reasoned that if the tenant believed the landlord was evading receipt of rent, the Act provides a statutory mechanism: under Section 8, the tenant should issue notice to the landlord to name a bank, and if the bank is not named, the tenant must apply to the Rent Controller for permission to deposit the rent. The appellant did not avail of this remedy.

The Court also stated that the omission to avail of the procedure under Section 11 does not disentitle the landlord from seeking eviction for wilful default. On this reasoning, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of wilful default forming the principal ground for eviction.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED: The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was granted three months’ time from the date of the order to vacate the premises, subject to furnishing the usual undertaking within four weeks from the date of the order. The order made no award as to costs (“No costs”). The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications beyond the direct effect between the parties, and it does not set out any new precedent.