IMPORTANT POINT
When in earlier eviction petition on ground of default in payment of rent, directions were given by Court to deposit rent arrears and to continue deposit of rent month by month in Court and tenant failed to make compliance with order and rent arrears accumulated, default has to be considered to be wilful.

Headnote:A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960-Section 10(2)(1)-Eviction petition on ground of default in payment of rent-Eviction order passed by Controller and upheld by High Court-Appeal-Default has to be wilful before tenant incurs liability for eviction-In the earlier eviction petition on ground of default, Supreme Court had mandated tenant to clear all arrears of rent and to deposit rent month by month in Court-Appellant did not comply the order and huge amount of arrears accumulated-Appellant did not keep landlord informed of deposits either directly or by complying with Rule-High Court rightly held appellant tenant to be a chronic wilful defaulter and eviction decree was fully justified-Appellant however granted time till 31.5.2004 to vacate premises on fulfilling certain preconditions.
Held : The case at hand projects a picture where in spite of the leaning of the law in favour of the tenant, if anyone deserves sympathy it is the landlord and not the tenant. As already noticed, this is the third round of litigation complaining of default in payment of rent by the tenant. In the first round of litigation the rate of rent was alleged by the landlord to be Rs. 160/- per month which was denied by the tenant who pleaded the rate of rent to be Rs. 80/- per month only. In the litigation which ended in the apex court, the rate of rent was finally adjudged to have been Rs. 160/- per month and not Rs. 80/- as was pleaded by the tenant. Not only does the law itself require the tenant to pay or tender the rent month to month, the order of this Court mandated the tenant to clear all the arrears of rent within two months and thereafter to deposit the rent month by month and strictly observe compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court. The tenant did not even thereafter comply with the provisions of Rule 5. Huge amount of arrears accumulated, which were cleared in one go. Even other deposits were not regularly made. The tenant did not keep the landlords informed of the deposits either directly or by complying with the provision of the Rule. The obligation of the tenant to pay or tender the rent cannot be said to have been discharged unless and until the landlords were posted with the information along with particulars enabling them to withdraw the amount. The legal notices served by the landlords were not responded to in the desired manner so as to put an end to their grievance. A claim for eviction founded on the simple ground of default in payment remained pending for years, obviously because of the reluctance and the procrastinating tactics of the tenant. If this is not wilful default then what else can it be? We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court has rightly held the tenant to be a chronic wilful defaulter. The decree for eviction is fully justified. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-The tenant is in appeal, by special leave, feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court holding the tenant liable to be evicted from the suit premises on the ground available to the landlord-respondents under Section 10(2)(i) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter the Act , for short). The said provision entitles a landlord to evict the tenant on the latter s failure to pay or tender the rent within the specified number of days on its becoming due. The proviso appended to sub-section (2) provides for the Controller allowing the tenant a reasonable period of time not exceeding fifteen days to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord calculated up to the date of such payment or tender, and upon such payment or tender being made the prayer for eviction may be refused if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant s default to pay or tender the rent was not wilful. It is conceded at the Bar that the tenant shall incur the liability for eviction only on a finding arrived at by the Controller of wilful default on the part of the tenant.

2. This litigation has a history of around thirty years broken into three rounds of litigation, each time the landlord having sought for the eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default and twice the tenant having successfully escaped the threat of eviction. In the third round he is struck by the findings arrived at and recorded in very many details by the learned Rent Controller in his Order dated August 25, 1993, which has been upheld by the High Court in revision.

3. In an earlier round of litigation the tenant had come up to this Court and this Court had, vide its order dated 12.1.1980, directed him to deposit the then arrears within a period of two months and continuously deposit the rent falling due thereafter, month by month, by the 10th day of every month, with the Rent Controller. Complaining of the default once again having been committed by the tenant, the landlords in the first instance served through their counsel a notice dated 28.10.81 on the tenant, calling upon him to furnish details of the rent deposited by him with the Controller. The tenant through his advocate gave a reply that all the arrears of rent were cleared. However, no particulars as to challans by which the rent was deposited with the Controller were furnished. On 12.11.1981, the landlord moved an application before the Controller for withdrawing the amount deposited by the tenant, and his application was returned with an endorsement by the office of the Controller that an amount of Rs. 216.25 paise only was lying deposited. In a communication dated 12.11.1981, the landlord was informed by the tenant that there were arrears to the tune of Rs. 6,300/- which were all deposited in one go. Here again, the details of challans were not furnished and in fact the Controller also gave credit for the amount of deposit made by tenant on the basis of a letter of the State Bank of Hyderabad certifying the amount of deposit. In the proceedings initiated by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenant under Section 10(2)(i) of th Act, the plea taken by the tenant was that the challans, evidencing the deposit of rent with the bank, were sent to the Controller from time to time through registered post. He made a statement to that effect on 21.8.1989 when he was examined in the Court of Controller. On a prayer made by the landlord, 4 years after the date of the said statement, the tenant was recalled for further cross examination and on 13.7.1993 he made available the challan showing deposit of Rs.6,300/- and other challans also which he had kept with himself until then. Even these challans, when scrutinized, did not support the plea of the tenant that the entire amount in arrears up to date had been cleared.

4. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 30 of the Act, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh has framed the Rules called The Andhra Pradesh Buildi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2003 Supreme(SC) 1195

Cases Referred (6)

Judicial Analysis