Case Note & Summary
This matter arose from eviction proceedings instituted by the respondent landlord against the appellant tenant under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The landlord sought eviction on the ground of willful default in payment of rent for the period June 1990 to October 31, 1990. The Rent Controller, the appellate authority, and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CRP No.4290/95 all held that the tenant had committed willful default and ordered eviction. The tenant then approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The appellant tenant contended that the respondent landlord was staying in Hyderabad and that the power of attorney holder, who was the landlord's brother-in-law-cum-maternal uncle, used to visit Madanpalle and collect rent whenever he came. According to the appellant, this arrangement amounted to a contract to the contrary, excusing his non-payment of rent during the period in question. The appellant also argued that because the landlord did not demand rent, he was not in default. The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's contention. The Court observed that even though the parties were related, the tenant had an obligation to pay rent regularly. Failure to pay rent for the specified period constituted willful default. The Court further noted that if the tenant found that the landlord was evading payment of rent, the statute prescribed a remedy under Section 8 of the Act: the tenant could issue a notice to the landlord to name a bank, and if the landlord failed to do so, the tenant could file an application before the Rent Controller for permission to deposit the rent. The appellant did not avail of this remedy. The Court also held that the omission to avail of the procedure under Section 11 of the Act did not disentitle the landlord from seeking eviction for willful default. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. However, the Court granted the appellant three months' time from the date of the judgment to vacate the premises, subject to the appellant filing the usual undertaking within four weeks. No order as to costs was made.
Headnote
A) Landlord and Tenant - Eviction on Ground of Willful Default - Obligation to Pay Rent Regularly - A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, Section 10(2)(1) - Tenant contended that landlord's absence and relation to power of attorney holder created a contract to contrary for deferred rent payments - Court rejected contention, holding that existence of relationship did not absolve tenant from duty to pay rent monthly; failure to pay rent for June to October 1990 constituted willful default - Held that eviction order on ground of willful default was proper (Paras Not mentioned). B) Landlord and Tenant - Rent Deposit Procedure - Tenant's Duty to Resort to Statutory Remedies When Landlord Evades - A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, Sections 8 and 11 - Tenant argued that landlord's non-demand or evasion excused default - Court held that if landlord evades payment of rent, tenant must issue notice under Section 8 to name a bank and, if not done, file application before Rent Controller for permission to deposit rent; omission to avail Section 11 procedure did not disentitle landlord from seeking eviction - Held that failure to deposit rent did not bar eviction for willful default (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant committed willful default in payment of rent from June 1990 to October 31, 1990, and whether his failure to avail the deposit procedure under Sections 8 and 11 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 disentitled the landlord from seeking eviction.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; three months' time granted to appellant to vacate premises on giving usual undertaking within four weeks; no costs.
Law Points
- Tenant has obligation to pay rent regularly
- failure to pay rent constitutes willful default
- if landlord evades tenant must follow Section 8 deposit procedure
- omission to avail Section 11 deposit does not disentitle landlord from seeking eviction
- relationship between parties does not create contract to contrary
