Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N.Ray : S.B.Majmudar
Dakaya Alias Dakaiah
Versus
Anjani
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 10/12/95
Advocates Appeared: Mehta Dhruv : Mehta S.K. : Narender V. : Rao T.N. : Sagar S.U.K. : Vachher Aman
Constitution of India - Article 136 - A.P. Buildings Control Act, 1960 - Section 10 – Tenant – Claim of compensation - Landlady however demanded surrender of tenancy of tenant within one week from the date of receipt of notice tenant initially sent a money-order for a sum being the monthly rent and such amount has been received by the landlady and accepted by her. Within five days thereafter tenant sent a bank draft for and it is an admitted position that such draft was received by the landlady before filing the suit for eviction - Said draft, however, has not been by the landlady and the same has been deposited before the Rent Controller in the eviction proceedings - Eviction petition was filed before the Rent Controller – Held, WE may indicate here that the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tenant will suffer serious prejudice if an order of eviction is maintained because he is carrying on his business in the tenanted premises - Learned counsel has also submitted that if it commends to this court that interference under discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution JS not warranted unless tenant is prepared to pay a reasonable and fair market rent, the tenant-appellant is willing to pay such monthly rent as may appear just and proper to this court, so that order of eviction is set aside and the applicant is permitted to continue his possession - It appears to us that tenant-appellant is carrying on business in disputed premises and the order of eviction cannot but affect his interest seriously - It also appears to us that whether or not fact remains that tenant defaulted in payment of rent for several months for which the landlady, stated to be poor and helpless widow, has suffered considerable prejudice - It therefore appears to us that it will be consonant to equity and justice if the interference with the impugned order of eviction is made in this appeal with a direction to the tenant to pay fair and reasonable rent to which the tenant-appellant is ready and willing - Considering the facts and circumstances of the case. we set aside the order of eviction by directing that the tenant-appellant would pay to the respondent-landlady the rent for the premises in question with effect per month - Appellant-tenant will also pay any other amount, if remains unpaid towards the payment of rent at the old rate per month within a period of six weeks from today. In default, the appeal will stand dismissed. We, however, make it clear that this order will not preclude landlady to seek eviction of the tenant in future on such grounds as may be available in law – Appeal allowed
(1) LEAVE granted
(2) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the decision of the High court of a. P. dated 13/2/1993 passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 2824 of 1994. By the said impugned judgment, the A. P. High court has dismissed the revision application made against the order dated 4/7/1994 of the Additional Chief Judge. City Small Cause court. Hyderabad in RA No. 203 of 1992 affirming the order dated 29/4/1992 passed by the Pri. Rent Controller, Secunderabad in RC No. 316 of 1988
(3) THE respondent-landlady made an application under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the A.P. Rent Act) for eviction of the tenant-appellant on the ground of wilful default of payment of rent for the period September 198 8/11/1988 amounting to Rs. 1,125.00. There is no dispute in this case that the tenant failed to make the payment within the stipulated period for the said months. It, however, appears to us that the landlady gave a notice to the tenant on 6/12/1988 claiming payment of rent for the said months of September 198 8/11/1988. The landlady, however, demanded surrender of the tenancy of the tenant within one week from the date of receipt of the notice dated 6/12/1988. The tenant initially sent a money-order for a sum of Rs. 375.00 being the monthly rent on 7/12/1988 and such amount has been received by the landlady and accepted by her. Within five days thereafter, on 12/12/1988, the tenant sent a bank draft for Rs. 1,125.00 and it is an admitted position that such draft was received by the landlady before filing the suit for eviction. The said draft, however, has not been encashed by the landlady and the same has been deposited before the Rent Controller in the eviction proceedings. The eviction petition was filed before the Rent Controller on 19-12-1988
(4) IT has been held by the Rent Controller that the tenant having committed wilful default, the landlady is entitled to get the order of eviction. Accordingly, order of eviction was made. The said view was upheld in appeal and as aforesaid the revision application was dismissed by the High court
(5) MR Dhurv Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has drawn our attention to the decision of this court in the case of S. Sundaram Pillai v. V. R. Pattabiraman . In the said decision, the provisions of Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was taken into consideration. It may be indicated here that Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is pan materia similar to Section 10 of the A.P. Rent Act excepting that in Tamil Nadu Act an explanation has been added to the proviso to sub-section (2 of Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Act. The said explanation provides that for the purpose of Ss. (2 of Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Act, 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. This court in the aforesaid case of S. Sundaram Pillai has indicated that default per se cannot be construed as wilful and keeping in mind the beneficial purpose of the Rent Act to protect the eviction of the tenant, if the payment has been made before the institution of the suit, the cause of action for instituting of the suit, will vanish. In the instant case, immediately on receipt of demand of payment of rent, the tenant initially sent a sum of Rs. 375.00 by money-order and thereafter a bank draft of Rs. 1,125.00 covering the entire period of default from September 198 8/11/1988 was sent to the landlady. It, therefore, appears to us that there was no occasion to proceed on the footing that there was a wilful default for which an order for eviction of the tenant was to be passed. As the tenant had already sent the bank draft covering the entire defau
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
