IMPORTANT POINT
Omission to avail of the prescribed procedure u/s 8 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 for deposit of rent in Court disentitles the tenant to plead that there was no wilful default in payment of rent on his part.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960-Sections 11 and 8-Eviction petition on ground of wilful default in payment of rent-Landlord issued notice of default-No compliance-Suit filed-Tenant moved application for deposit in Court u/s 8(5)-Deposited in Court-Petition dismissed-High Court reversed dismissal on ground that deposit was not according to procedure laid down u/s 8-Appeal to Supreme Court-Plea of substantial compliance and equity-Rejected-Whether High Court was right in its approach? (Yes)-Appeals dismissed-Case law discussed.
       Held : The rent legislation is normally intended for the benefit of the tenants. At the same time, it is well-settled that the benefits conferred on the tenants through the relevant statutes can be enjoyed only on the basis of strict compliance of the statutory provisions. Equitable consideration have no place in such matters. The statute contains express provisions. In prescribes various steps which a tenant is required to take. In Section 8 of the Act, the procedure to be followed by the tenant is given step by step. An earlier step is a pre-condition for the next step. The tenant has to observe the procedure as prescribed in the statute. A strict compliance of the procedure is necessary. The tenant cannot straight away jump to the last step i.e. to deposit rent in court. The last step can come only after the earlier steps have been taken by the tenant. We are fortified in this view by the decisions of this Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Ganpat Lal & Anr. reported in 1996(1) SCC 243 and M. Bhaskar v. J. Venkatarama Naidu reported in 1996(6) SCC 228. (Para 5)
       The counsel for appellant did not dispute that the tenant had not fulfilled the conditions prescribed in Section 8 of the Act before making deposit of rent in Court. (Para 6)
       The only submission that was advanced on behalf of the appellant was that since the deposit of rent had been made, a lenient view ought to be taken. We are unable to agree with this. The appellant failed to satisfy the conditions contained in Section 8. Mere refusal of the landlord to receive rent cannot justify the action of the tenant in straightaway invoking Section 8(5) of the Act without following the procedure contained in the earlier sub-sections i.e. sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 8. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the eviction order passed against appellant with respect to the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent needs no interference. The impugned judgment of the High Court, therefore, does not call for interference. These appeals are dismissed. We are informed that the landlords have already taken possession of the suit premises in pursuance of the High Court judgment. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar, J.-These appeals are directed against a common judgment dated 24.12.1999 of the High Court disposing of two Revision Petitions. Briefly the facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the appellant was a tenant in the suit premises since before its purchase by the respondent-landlords. In May 1990, by mutual consent of the parties rent of the suit premises was enhanced to Rs. 500/- per month. Admittedly, rent up to October, 1990 was received by the landlords, thereafter as per the case of the respondents, tenant defaulted in payment of rent. The appellant filed suit for injunction in the Civil Court praying that the landlords be restrained from threatening to dispossess the appellant from suit premises. In the said suit, an interim injunction was granted in favour of the appellant. On 1st November, 1993, the landlords issued a default notice alleging that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent and was, therefore, liable to eviction. The tenant replied to the said notice on 20th November, 1993 denying any default on his part in payment of rent. Ultimately, on 7th February, 1994, an eviction petition was filed before the Rent Controller by the landlords on two grounds viz., (i) default in payment of rent and (ii) personal need of the landlords for occupying the premises.

2. On 15th March, 1994, the tenant made an application under Section 8(5) of The Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control Act), 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), for permission to deposit the amount of rent in Court. The Rent Controller allowed the said application vide order dated 25h April, 1995. The Eviction Petition filed by the landlords was dismissed on the same date. The Rent Controller held that it could not be said that tenant had committed default in payment of rent. The Rent Controller further observed that even assuming there was default on the part of the tenant, it could not be said to be willful default, therefore, the eviction petition was dismissed. No finding was given on the second ground for eviction regarding personal need of the landlords for occupying the premises. The landlords filed appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority against both the orders of the Rent Controller. Both the appeals were allowed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority held that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent. It relied on admission on the part of the tenant himself as available in the evidence of the tenant that at least from May, 1993, no rent had been paid. The tenant is said to have deposited the rent in Court during the pendency of the proceedings. However, the question for consideration before the Appellate Authority was whether the tenant had committed default in payment of rent? The Appellate Authority held that the tenant had committed default, and therefore, the eviction petition was allowed. It was observed by the Appellate Authority that even after the petition had been filed by the landlords, the tenant did not think of offering the rent to the landlords. Further the tenant did not issue notice as required under Section 8(2) of the Act calling upon the landlords to notify the Bank where the tenant could make the deposit of rent. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Authority held that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent, and therefore, the eviction petition was allowed. No finding was however recorded on the second ground of eviction. Based on the failure of the tenant to follow procedure and deposit rent of suit property under Section 8(2) of the Act it was held that the tenant having failed to comply with the procedure prescribed in that behalf under the Act the decree for eviction had to follow. The tenant filed Civil Revision Petitions against both the orders of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in the High Court. Both the revision petitions were dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned judgment dated 24.12.1999. Henc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1081

IMPORTANT POINTOmission to avail of the prescribed procedure u/s 8 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 for deposit of rent in Court disentitles the tenant to plead that there was no wilful default in payment of rent on his part.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Omission to avail of the prescribed procedure u/s 8 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 for deposit of rent in Court disentitles the tenant to plead that there was no wilful default in payment of rent on his part.