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

1989 Supreme(SC) 458

A.M.AHMADI, K.JAGANNATHA SHETTY
Rakapalli Raja Rama Gopala Rao – Appellant
Versus
Naragani Govinda Sehararao – Respondent


JUDGMENT

AHMADI, J, :— Special leave granted.

2. This tenants appeal raises the question whether a tenant who omits to pay or tender the rent in respect of the demised premises under the belief that he had a right to purchase the property under a prior agreement to sell and was, therefore, not obliged to pay the rent can be said to be a wilful defaulter within the meaning of the proviso to sub-section (2) of S. 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act). Section 10(1) lays down that a tenant shall not be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of this section or Ss. 12 and 13 of the Act. Clause (i) of subsection (2) of that section next provides that a landlord who seeks to evict his tenant may apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf and the Controller on being satisfied that the tenant has not tendered the rent due by him within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is due shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession. This is, how









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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top