Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an eviction petition filed by the respondent landlady against the appellant tenant before the Principal Rent Controller, Secunderabad, under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, alleging wilful default in payment of rent for the months of September to November 1988, amounting to Rs.1125. The landlady issued a notice on 06-12-1988 demanding payment and surrender of tenancy within one week. The tenant sent a money order for Rs.375 on 07-12-1988, which the landlady accepted, and on 12-12-1988 sent a bank draft for Rs.1125 covering the entire default, which the landlady received before filing the eviction petition on 19-12-1988 but did not encash and instead deposited before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller held that the tenant had committed wilful default and ordered eviction on 29-04-1992. The Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dismissed the tenant's appeal in R.A.No.23/1992 on 04-07-1994, and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed Civil Revision Petition No.2824/1994 on 13-02-1995. The tenant appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The appellant's counsel relied on S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, in which the Supreme Court interpreted a similar provision of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, and held that default per se cannot be construed as wilful and that payment before institution of the suit extinguishes the cause of action. The appellant contended that since the entire arrears were tendered before the eviction petition, there was no wilful default, and that eviction would seriously prejudice his business. The respondent landlady, described as a poor and helpless widow, had suffered considerable prejudice due to the default in payment of rent for several months. The Supreme Court noted that the lower courts failed to appreciate the effect of tendering the entire default before institution of the suit. The Court observed that the beneficial purpose of rent legislation is to protect tenants from eviction, and that when payment is made before the institution of the suit, the cause of action for eviction on the ground of wilful default vanishes. However, considering the tenant's admitted default and the landlady's prejudice, the Court invoked its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to set aside the eviction subject to equitable conditions. The Court directed the tenant to pay rent at Rs.550 per month from 01-10-1995 and to pay any unpaid rent at the old rate of Rs.375 per month till 30-09-1995 within six weeks, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed. The Court clarified that the order did not preclude the landlady from seeking eviction in future on any grounds available in law. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Wilful Default - Section 10 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 - Mere default in payment of rent does not constitute wilful default; wilful default requires deliberate or intentional non-payment - The tenant sent a money order and a bank draft covering the entire arrears before institution of the eviction petition; lower courts erroneously treated the default as wilful - Held that tender of rent before suit extinguishes the cause of action for eviction on the ground of wilful default (Paras Not mentioned). B) Rent Control - Tender of Rent Before Suit - Section 10 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and Section 10 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Payment or tender of defaulted rent before filing of the eviction petition negates wilful default - The Supreme Court followed S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman and held that the beneficial purpose of rent legislation protects tenants; eviction order cannot be sustained when entire arrears were tendered before suit - Held that there was no occasion to proceed on the footing of wilful default (Paras Not mentioned). C) Constitutional Law - Discretionary Relief Under Article 136 - Article 136 of Constitution of India - Supreme Court can set aside eviction on equitable terms where tenant defaulted but landlord suffered prejudice - Tenant directed to pay enhanced rent of Rs.550 per month from 01-10-1995 and arrears at old rate within six weeks; in default, appeal stands dismissed - Held that interference with the eviction order was consonant with equity and justice (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether tender of the entire rent in default before institution of eviction petition negates wilful default under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, and whether the eviction order should be set aside.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; eviction order set aside; tenant directed to pay rent at Rs.550 per month from 01-10-1995 and to pay any unpaid rent at the old rate of Rs.375 per month till 30-09-1995 within six weeks from the date of order; in default, the appeal would stand dismissed; no order as to costs; order does not preclude future eviction proceedings on any available grounds.
Law Points
- Mere default per se does not amount to wilful default
- tender of entire rent default before institution of eviction proceedings extinguishes cause of action
- beneficial purpose of rent control legislation protects tenants from eviction
- where tenant has defaulted and landlord suffered prejudice
- equitable relief may be granted by directing payment of fair and reasonable rent
