Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India decided a tenant's appeal against eviction orders passed under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The respondent landlord purchased the premises on 30 March 1977 while the appellant was already in occupation as a monthly tenant at a rent of Rs.60. Shortly after purchase, the respondent filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction alleging that the appellant had surrendered possession and then trespassed into the property. The appellant contested, asserting that he was a tenant and had never surrendered possession. Both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed the respondent's suit, thereby confirming the appellant's status as a tenant. Subsequently, the respondent issued a notice dated 12 August 1981 demanding arrears of rent from 30 March 1977 to 12 August 1981, and thereafter filed an eviction petition under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act, alleging wilful default in payment of rent. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition, the appellate authority affirmed, and the High Court dismissed the tenant's revision petition. The tenant then appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the tenant's default in payment of rent was wilful within the meaning of Section 10(2)(i) of the Act, and whether he was entitled to the benefit of the proviso allowing payment within fifteen days if the default was not wilful. The appellant contended that his default was not wilful because the respondent had refused to accept rent, had treated him as a trespasser in civil proceedings, and had never acknowledged him as a tenant until those proceedings concluded. The appellant also stated in his reply to the notice that non-payment was not due to any fault on his part and that he was willing to pay in instalments. He deposited all arrears before the Rent Controller in October 1981, within one month of the institution of the eviction application. The Supreme Court observed that the lower courts had not considered these facts in the right perspective. The Court noted that despite the appellant being a tenant under the previous owner, the respondent dragged him to civil court alleging trespass, and the civil court decided in favour of the appellant. The respondent's refusal to accept rent and the dispute over tenancy explained the non-payment. The Court held that keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, the default 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. Therefore, the benefit of the proviso to Section 10(2)(i) was available. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and dismissed the eviction application filed by the respondent before the Rent Controller. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Landlord and Tenant - Eviction on Ground of Wilful Default - Default Not Wilful Where Landlord Disputed Tenancy and Tenant Deposited Arrears Promptly - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Section 10(2)(i) and proviso - The landlord purchased the premises while the tenant was in possession and then filed a civil suit alleging trespass; the civil court dismissed the suit and confirmed the tenant's status. The landlord refused to accept rent, and the tenant deposited all arrears before the Rent Controller within one month of the eviction application. The Supreme Court held that the default was not wilful in view of the peculiar facts and dismissed the eviction application, setting aside lower court orders. Held that the tenant was entitled to the benefit of the proviso because the landlord's own conduct prevented payment and the tenant promptly paid after the application was filed (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant's default in payment of rent was wilful under Section 10(2)(i) and the proviso of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, entitling the landlord to eviction.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; judgments of the courts below set aside; eviction application filed by the respondent before the Rent Controller dismissed; no costs.
Law Points
- Default in payment of rent is not wilful when landlord refuses to accept rent and disputes tenancy in prior civil proceedings
- tenant deposits all arrears before Rent Controller within one month of eviction application
- proviso to Section 10(2)(i) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act
- 1960 applies
