Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a civil revision application filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, challenging concurrent decisions of the Rent Controller and the District Court under the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954. The respondent-landlord initiated proceedings alleging that the revision applicant, who had executed a rent note on 27 January 1996 at a monthly rent of Rs. 400, committed willful default in paying rent from 1 January 1996 to 30 September 1998. The landlord issued a termination notice dated 7 September 1998. The revision applicant resisted the eviction petition on the ground that he was not the tenant; rather, his father was the tenant and the family lived as a joint Hindu family. He asserted that his father had regularly tendered rent through money orders, which the landlord refused, and therefore no willful default occurred. The Rent Controller, by order dated 23 May 2007, allowed the eviction petition, holding the revision applicant liable for willful default. The revision applicant’s appeal (Rent Appeal No. 2 of 2007) was dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Beed, on 30 August 2011, confirming the findings. Aggrieved, the revision applicant preferred the present civil revision application. Before the High Court, the applicant’s counsel contended that the notice sent by the landlord was addressed to both the applicant and his father, indicating the father’s subsisting tenancy; that money orders were sent but refused; that no willful default existed; and that the proviso to Section 15 of the Act, which allows a tenant to pay arrears within fifteen days, should have been applied. The applicant also relied on several judgments of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court to argue that willful default must be intentional and conscious, and that refusal of tender precludes a finding of willful default. The respondent’s counsel countered that the rent note conclusively proved the applicant’s tenancy, that the father’s money orders were rightly refused because he was no longer the tenant, and that the applicant never tendered rent himself, thereby demonstrating deliberate and willful default. It was further argued that the proviso to Section 15 could not be invoked because the applicant consistently denied being a tenant. The High Court heard both sides and reserved judgment on 4 July 2012, pronouncing it on 13 July 2012. The provided text of the judgment does not include the court’s final analysis, reasoning, or operative directions, thus the outcome of the revision application, the determination of the legal issues, and the final order are not ascertainable from the available excerpt. The lower courts’ concurrent findings of willful default and the applicability of the proviso to Section 15 remained the core issues before the High Court.
Headnote
A) Rent Control – Willful Default – Tenancy – Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, Section 15 – The dispute centered on whether the revision applicant, who executed a rent note dated 27-01-1996, was the tenant, or whether his father was the tenant as a joint Hindu family, and whether the default in rent payment was willful. The landlord claimed the applicant was tenant and defaulted from 01-01-1996 to 30-09-1998; the applicant argued his father was tenant, rent was tendered by money order and refused, hence no willful default. (Paras 3-6, 8) B) Rent Control – Proviso to Section 15 – Applicability – Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954, Proviso to Section 15 – The applicant sought benefit of the proviso allowing payment of arrears within 15 days to avoid eviction, but the landlord contended that since the applicant denied being a tenant, the proviso could not apply. The court was called upon to consider whether the proviso could be invoked in such circumstances. (Paras 7, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revision applicant was a tenant and committed willful default in payment of rent; whether the proviso to Section 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 is applicable despite denial of tenancy; whether the concurrent findings of the courts below are perverse and warrant interference in revision.
