SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1424

K.RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B.PATTANAIK
M. Bhaskar – Appellant
Versus
J. Venkatarama Naidu – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard teamed counsel on both sides.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh made on July 9, 1996 in CRP No. 4290/95. The matter arises under Section 10(2)(i) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The principal ground for eviction ordered by all the three courts below is that the appellant has committed wilful default in the payment of the rent from the month of June 1990 till October 31, 1990.

3. The contention of Shri Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the respondent-landlord was staying in Hyderabad and the power of attorney holder is his brother-in-law-cum-matenal uncle and that whenever he was coming to Madanpalle, he was paying the rents and, therefore, there is a contract to the contrary. We find no substance in the contention. Though parties are related, nonetheless when the appellant is staying in the premises as tenant, he has got an obligation to pay the rent regularly. If he does not do so, he commits wilful default. If he finds that the landlord is evading the payment of rent, procedure has been prescribed under Section 8 of the Act to issue notice



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top