S. Sundaram Pillai: Kousalaya Devt: Murugesa Mudaliar: N. S. Dhanalakshmi Ammal: Thahira Beevi: M. Balakrishnan: K. R. Krishnan vs V. R. Pattabiraman: P. Lakshminarayana Charya: Selvaraj Chettiar: B. S. Ramachari: R. A. Muthiah Nadar: Fathima Bai: P. Bhanumatt

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1985 Supreme(SC) 21

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.*
S. Sundaram Pillai, etc., Appellants
Versus
V. R. Pattabiraman, Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos.1178 of 1984, 6211 of 1983 and 1992, 1659, 3668, 2246 and 4012 of 1982, D/- 24-1-1985.
AND
Kousalaya Devi and others, Appellants
Versus
P. Lakshminarayana Charya and others, Respondents.
AND
Murugesa Mudhaliar, Appellant
Versus
Selvaraj Chettiar, Respondent.
AND
N.S. Dhanalakshmi Ammal, Appellant
Versus
B.S. Ramachari, Respondent.
AND
Thahira Beevi, Appellant
Versus
R.A. Muthiah Nadar, Respondent.
AND
M. Balakrishnan, Appellant
Versus
Fathima Bai and others, Respondents.
AND
K.R. Krishnan, Appellant
Versus
P. Bhanumati, Respondent.
Advocates appeared
Dr. Y. S. Chitale, Sr. Advocate and Mr. P. N. Ramalingam Advocate (in Civ. Appeal No.1178 / 84); Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate and Mr. A. T. M. Sampath, Advocate (in Civ. Appeal No.6211 / 83); Mr. K. Ramkumar, Advocate (in Civ. Appeal No.1992 / 82); Mr. A. S. Nambiar, Advocate (in Civ. Appeal No.1659 / 82); Mr. K. S. Ramamurthy, Sr. Advocate and Mr. A.T.M. Sampath Advocate (in Civ. Appeal No.3668 / 82); 585 Mr. M. G. Ramachandran and A.V. Rangam Advocate (in Civ. Appeal No.2246/82) and Mr. T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, Sr. Advocate & Mr. S. Balakrishna, Advocate (in Civil Appeal No.4012/84) for Appellants; Mr. P. G. Nair, Sr. Advocate, M/s. K. K. Mani, V. Shekher and P.R. Seetharaman, Advocates with him (in Civ. Appeal No.1178 / 84); Mr. T. V. S. Narasimhachari, Advocate (in Civ. Appeal No.6211 / 83); Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, Advocate (in Civ. Appeal No.1992/82); M/s. C.S. Vaidianathan and K.K. Mani, Advocates (in Civ. Appeal No.1659 & 3668 / 82); Mr. T. S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, Sr. Advocate (in Civ. Appeal No. 2246 / 82) and Mr. Padmanabhan & D. N. Gupta, Advocates (Civ. Appeal No.4012 / 82) for Respondents.
The judgments are printed in the order in which they are given in the Certified Copy. Ed.
From:- (1) C.R.P. No.3396/81, D/-15-7-82 (Mad). (2) C.R.P. No.2477/82, D/-5-11-82 (A.P.) (3) C.R.P. No.152/81, D/-17-12-1981 (Mad); C.R.P. No.1630/80, D/-14-12-81 (Mad); C.R.P. No.4087/82, D/-20-10-82 (Mad); C.R.P. No.1397/80, D/-5-11-81 (Mad) and C.R.P. No.3983/81, D/-23-11-82 (Mad).

Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, A.S.NAMBIYAR, A.T.M.SAMPATH, A.V.RANGAM, C.S.VAIDYANATHAN, D.N.GUPTA, K.K.MANI, K.RAM KUMAR, K.S.Ramamurthy, M.G.RAMA CHANDRA RAO, P.G.NAYAR, P.N.Ramalingam, P.R.SITHARAMAN, PADMANABHA MAHALE, S.BALAKRISHNAN, T.S.KRISHNAMURTHY IYER, T.V.S.N.Chari, V.SHEKHAR, Y.S.Chitale

Headnote:
Tamil Nadu Buildings Act, 1960 - Section 10(2), 10(2)(i) - Andhra Pradesh Buildings Act, 1960 - Section 10 - Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 - Section 7(2) - Pondicherry Buildings Act, 1969 - Tamil Nadu Buildings Act, 1960 - Section 10(2) - Landlord - Tenant - Default in Payment of Rent - Suit for Evicting Appellant - Respondent-landlord let out suit premises to appellant-tenant on a monthly rent for non-residential use - Appellant, despite repeated reminders, did not pay rent for period - Respondent filed a suit for evicting appellant on two grounds wilful default in payment of rent, and material acts of waste committed in building - Whether or not default was wilful and in doing so it cannot be guided wholly and solely by Explanation which is merely clarificatory in nature - Whether default has been wilful and to such a case Explanation would have no application - Whether or not default committed by tenant is willful – Held, In case of Carrington v. Therm-a-Stor Ltd. Master of Rolls observed that "If regard is had solely to apparent mischief and the need for a remedy, it is only too easy for a judge to persuade himself that Parliament must have intended to provide remedy which he would himself have decreed if he had had legislative power - In fact Parliament may not have taken same view of what is a mischief, may have decided as a matter of policy not to legislate for a legal remedy or may simply have failed to realise that situation could ever arise - This is not to say that statutes are to be construed in blinkers or with narrow and legalistic literalness, but only that effect should be given to intentions of Parliament as expressed in statute, applying normal canons of construction for resolving ambiguities or any lack of clarity – Court would construe expression wilful default in Explanation to Proviso to sub-section (2) of section 10 of Act in manner court have indicated - In that view of matter, Court would decide appeals accordingly, that is to say, Court would agree with my learned brethren in order passed in those cases where eviction orders have been passed after two months notice had been given and there was continuance of default by tenant thereof - Appeals which have been disposed of on basis of wilful default as understood in manner indicated in aforesaid observations, Court respectfully agree - Appeals which have been disposed of on wilful default other than in manner Court have indicated hereinbefore, Court respectfully differ - Appeals disposed of.

Judgment

FAZAL ALI, J. (For himself and on behalf of Varadarajan, J.):- These appeals involve more or less an identical point of law relating to the interpretation of the term wilful default .appearing in the proviso to section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) coupled with the Explanation which seeks to explain the intent of the proviso. We have heard counsel for the parties at great length and a large number of authorities have been cited before us in support of both the parties.

2. Before we take up the points of law involved in these appeals we would briefly narrate the bare facts of each of these cases in order to test the correctness of the points argued before us.

3. In civil appeal No. 1178 of 1984 the respondent-landlord let out the suit premises No. 3-B, New No. 2-B, Davidson Street, Broadway, Madras, to the appellant-tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- for non-residential use. The appellant, despite repeated reminders, did not pay the rent for the period from October 1978 to August 1979. The respondent filed a suit on 2-12-79 for evicting the appellant on two grounds : (1) wilful default in payment of rent, and (2) material acts of waste committed in the building.

4. It may be mentioned here that before filing a suit for eviction of the appellant, the respondent on 17-9-79 sent a two months notice to the appellant through his Advocate to clear up the dues. The appellant on receipt of the notice paid up the amount of the arrears, amounting to Rs. 6,600/-, on 3-10-79, i.e., within the stipulated period of two months. But, the respondent contended that in view of the past conduct of the appellant he was guilty of wilful default within the meaning of proviso to S. 10(2) of the Act.

5. So far as this appeal is concerned, as the entire rent had been paid up in pursuance of the notice dated 17-9-79 even prior to the filing of the suit, it is manifest that on the date of filing of the suit no cause of action in prasenti having arisen, the suit should have been dismissed on this short ground alone as being not maintainable. As indicated above, it was not open to the landlord after having received the entire amount of arrears before filing of the suit to have filed a suit for past conduct of the tenant. This appeal, therefore, merits dismissal on this ground alone.

6. In civil appeal No. 6211 of 1983, the respondent-tenants were given the suit premises No. 17/582, Ward B, Old corresponding No. 2, New No. 5/8/582 Abid Road, Hyderabad, on a monthly rent of Rs. 225/- which was, by mutual consent, increased to, Rs. 275/- per month in the year 1964. From 1-7-66, the rent was again agreed to be increased to Rs. 300/- per month. The appellants-landlord filed a suit under S. 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1960 on 12-11-71, against the respondents for eviction on three grounds : (1) wilful default by the tenants in payment of rent for the months of September, October and November 1971 (total amount being Rs. 900/-). (2) the tenants sublet the premises to one Hanumantha, and (3) that the premises were required bona fide for their own use. However, during the pendency of the matter, the original landlords, sold away their interest in the property in favour of the present appellants before us and, therefore, the question of bona fide requirement abated there itself.

7. The Rent Controller upheld both the grounds of wilful default and subletting. Aggrieved by the said decision, the respondents-tenant filed an appeal to the Chief Judge, City Small Cause Court, Hyderabad and the learned Chief Judge by his judgment held that wilful default in payment of rent for the month of September 1971 as also the question of subletting was proved. Against this decision of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes. the respondents filed a revision petition in the High Court. It is not in dispute that the rent from September, 1971 onwards has not been p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1985 Supreme(SC) 21

Cases Referred (11)