Back
`2003(5) Supreme 147
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
R.C. Lahoti & Ashok Bhan, JJ.
P.M. Punnoose -Appellant
versus
K.M. Munneruddin and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3121 of 2000
Decided on 23-7-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Bhimrao N. Naik, Sr. Advocate and V. Balachandran, Advocate.
For the Respondents : K.V. Vishwanathan, Kunwar Ajit Singh and K.V. Venkataraman, Advocates.
Held : The facts and circumstances of the case and the manner in which the finding was recorded by the Controller and reversed by the appellate authority indicate that the rent was being paid or tendered by money orders soon after the purchase of the property by the respondents and therein the month for which the payment of rent was being tendered by money order was not being stated by the appellant. The principal dispute centered around the payment of rent for the month of October, 1988. There was a controversy as to whether the amount for this month was paid or tendered or not and, therefore, the appellant, to be on safer side, had tendered fresh amount of Rs. 400/- in the court along with the written statement. Though in the notice dated 1-2-1989, the respondents through their counsel have taken a stand that the rent remitted in the month of December, 1988 was being appropriated towards arrears for the month of October, 1988, however, a perusal of the three decisions rendered upto the High Court does not show the respondents having adduced any evidence in proof of the factum of such appropriation. The statement made in the notice as to appropriation remains an assertion made in the notice but not substantiated by evidence. There appears to be a bona-fide dispute as to the quantum of arrears, that is, as to what was the exact amount of rent paid by the tenant-appellant to the landlord-respondents and consequent upon which payment the liability for how many number of months came to be extinguished. The facts found indicate the tenant-appellant remitting the amount of rent by money orders before and after and even during the pendency of the proceedings and some of the money orders having been refused by the landlord-respondents. The present one is a fit case where the Controller should have exercised his power under proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 10 of the Act by passing an order thereunder and giving the tenant-appellant a reasonable time, not exceeding 15 days, to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord upto the date of such payment of rent. If such order was complied with by the appellant-tenant, then the application for eviction should have been rejected. The learned Controller has erred in not passing that order. (Paras 16 & 17)
(ii) Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960-Section 25-Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court-Is not as narrow as one under Section 115 CPC but finding of fact arrived by appellate authority could not be lightly interfered with by High Court acting like a Court of appeal. (Para 18)
JUDGMENT
The landlord-respondents filed an application seeking eviction of the appellant-tenant from the suit premises on the ground alleged to be available under Clause (i) of sub-Section (2) of Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (Act No. 18 of 1960) (hereinafter referred as the Act for short). The relevant provisions read as under:
"10. Eviction of tenants:-
(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied--
(i) that the tenant has not paid or tendeed the rent due by him in respect of the building, within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable, or
xx xx xx xx
the Controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application:
Provided that in any case falling under clause (i) if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant s default to pay or tender rent was not wilful, he may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 11, give the tenant a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days, to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord upto the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or tender, the application shall be rejected.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this sub-section, default to pay or tender rent shall be construed as wilful, if the default by the tenant in the payment or tender of rent continues after the issue of two months notice by the landlord claiming the rent.
2. The Controller allowed the application and directed the appellant-tenant to be evicted recording a finding that the tenant had committed a wilful default in the payment of rent. The tenant preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Court of Small Causes, being the appellate authority. The landlord preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Act which has been allowed. The High Court has set aside the judgment of the appellate authority and restored that of the Controller. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant has filed this appeal by special leave.
3. The facts in brief, so far as relevant for the purpose of this appeal, are briefly stated hereinafter. The landlord-respondents, five in number, purchased the suit property from the predecessor in title under the sale deed dated 9-1-1987. On the date of purchase, the appellant was the tenant in the suit premises holding the same on a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- from the predecessor in title of the respondents. On purchase of the property by the respondents the appellant commenced paying rent to the respondents. The rent for the month of January, 1987 was remitted by the appellant to the five respondents by way of five money orders for Rs. 80/- each. Thereafter, the appellant started remitting the rent to the respondents by money orders of Rs. 400/-, each payable to the first respondent. There is some controversy as to the exact amount of the rent paid or tendered but to clearing of such controversy, we will proceed to notice only such facts as have been found proved. After remitting the rent for the month of January, 1987, as stated hereinabove, the appellant-tenant sent seventeen money orders through which rent upto the month of September, 1988 was paid by the appellant and received by the respondents. Thereafter, the dispute erupted.
4. From the judgment of the appellate authority, which is the final court of facts, three relevant facts are culled out and reproduced in brief as follows:
5. Firstly, even before 1987, when the respondents purchased the suit property, the predecessor in title of the respondents had initi
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
