P. Sriramamurthy v. Vasantha Raman (Mrs) .

Factual and Procedural Background

An appeal by special leave arose from the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 6-1-1995 in CRP No. 404 of 1993. The appellant is the tenant, and the respondent is the landlady. A lease for 11 months was executed on 18-2-1988 at a monthly rent of Rs 2800.

The landlady issued a notice on 13-6-1988 alleging wilful default in rent payment for three months. The tenant replied on 20-6-1988 denying the allegations. By the time the eviction petition was filed, the default was stated to be for six months. The respondent filed OA No. 2709 of 1988 for eviction under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

The Rent Controller ordered eviction on two grounds: wilful default and use of the premises for a purpose other than that for which it was let. On appeal, that order was reversed. In revision, the High Court held that the tenant had committed wilful default and confirmed the Rent Controller’s eviction order. The tenant then brought the present appeal by special leave.

In a counter-affidavit filed in this Court, the respondent stated that the lease was granted for 11 months with the intention that, after the respondent’s husband’s retirement, the couple could return from the United States and settle permanently in the demised premises. It was further stated that both sustained injuries in a car accident, and due to severe back pain—particularly in winter—they decided to return. The respondent’s husband retired on 15-4-1995, and the couple decided to permanently settle in Madras, indicating a need for personal occupation of the premises.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the appellant-tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent.
2. Whether the Court could mould the relief and grant eviction on the ground of personal occupation based on subsequent events not originally pleaded.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

• The Court noted that the immediate question raised was whether the tenant had committed wilful default. However, the respondent’s counter-affidavit disclosed subsequent events establishing a bona fide need for personal occupation: the husband’s retirement on 15-4-1995, the couple’s return from the United States, and health issues following a car accident.
• The Court expressly acknowledged that the need for personal occupation had not been pleaded in the original proceedings. Nevertheless, it stated the settled principle that subsequent events may be taken into account to mould the relief.
• Applying that principle, the Court concluded that, in view of the subsequent developments, eviction could appropriately be granted on the ground of personal occupation, irrespective of the original pleadings and the prior focus on wilful default.
• The Court tailored the relief with specific conditions to balance equities:
  • The amount of Rs 24,000 deposited by the tenant was to be adjusted towards arrears of rent; any remaining arrears were to be paid within time granted by the Court.
  • The tenant was given six months’ time from the date of the order to deliver vacant possession, subject to filing the usual undertaking within four weeks.
  • The respondent was directed to file an affidavit within six weeks stating that, upon returning from the United States, they would neither let out the premises to third parties nor induct any other party, would personally reside in the building, and would not return to the United States for ten years from the date of the order.
  • If the respondents were to leave for the United States within the ten-year period, the tenant would be at liberty to seek possession of the premises.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The appeal was DISPOSED OF by granting eviction on the ground of personal occupation, based on subsequent events, with conditions regarding time to vacate, adjustment of deposit towards arrears, and an affidavit by the landlady regarding continuous personal occupation for ten years. No costs were awarded.

Implications: The immediate consequence is that the tenant must vacate within six months (subject to the undertaking), while the respondent must personally occupy the premises and comply with the ten-year undertaking; failure to do so enables the tenant to seek possession. The decision applies the settled principle that courts may consider subsequent events to mould relief. No broader implications or new precedent beyond the parties’ case were discussed in the opinion.