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

1996 Supreme(SC) 1424

1996(7) Supreme 389
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, Faizan Uddin and
G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
M. Bhaskar -Appellant
versus
J. Venkatarama Naidu, Rep. by his Power
of Attorney Holder A. Narayanaswamy
Naidu -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 12380 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.
17203 of 1996)
Decided on 10-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : A. Subba Rao, A.D.N. Rao, Advocates.
For the Respondent : L.N. Rao, V. Sridhar Reddy, G. Rama Krishan and S.U.K. Sagar, Advocates.

Headnote:A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960-Section 10 (2) (i)-Wilful default in payment of rent-Eviction order-Tenant s contention that he was paying rent to landlord s attorney holder-No notice was issued to landlord to name the bank-No application was made for rent deposit before Rent Controller-Omission to avail of the procedure u/s 11 of the Act did not disentitle the landlord to seek eviction for wilful default. (Para 3)

       

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 to the landlord to name the bank and if he does not name the bank, the tenant has to file an application before the Rent Controller for permission to deposit the rent. The appellant did not avail of that remedy. The omission to avail of the procedure under Section 11 does not disentitle the landlord to seek eviction for wilful default.

4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, three months time from today is granted to the appellant to vacate the premises on his giving an usual undertaking without four weeks from today. No costs.

Appeal dismissed.

******

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 Back to top