1. Appeal against eviction decree for wilful default in rent following transfer of ownership of premises. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 701
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C.Agrawal : S.Mohan
A.Dharmalingam
Versus
Palanisamy Gounder
Case No. : 4257 of 1991, 4258 of 1994
Date of Decision : 7/26/94
Once a tenant is notified of the transfer of ownership of the premises, the failure to pay rent arrears for the period since the purchase to the new owner constitutes wilful default.
Headnote:(A) Rent Control and Eviction Law - Wilful default in payment of rent - Tenant failed to pay rent for two months following the purchase of the premises by a new owner - Plea that rent was paid to the previous owner because notice of purchase was received later - Once notice of purchase was served, there was no justification for the tenant to withhold payment of rent arrears to the new owner - Such failure constitutes wilful default.
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed by a tenant against a decree for eviction passed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The landlord had purchased the premises and subsequently served notices to the tenant informing them of the purchase and the default in rent payments. While the tenant deposited rent for several months, rent for two months immediately following the purchase remained unpaid. The tenant contended that the rent for those two months had been paid to the previous owner since the notice of transfer was received only after that period, and thus, there was no wilful default.
Findings of Court:
The court found that although the tenant was informed of the purchase via notice on a specific date, there was no justification for the tenant to withhold the payment of rent for the two months in question from the new owner after the service of said notice.
Issues: Whether the failure to pay rent arrears to the new owner after being notified of the transfer of ownership constitutes wilful default.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that once a tenant is notified of the change in ownership, the failure to pay the rent arrears for the period since the purchase to the new owner is unjustified and amounts to wilful default.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
landlord and tenant law
-
eviction
- wilful default in rent (Para 1)
-
eviction
-
landlord and tenant law
Table of Contents
2. Tenant contends that payment of rent to the previous owner prior to notice of transfer precludes a finding of wilful default. (Para 1 )
3. After receiving notice of ownership transfer, the tenant had no justification for withholding arrears of rent due to the new owner. (Para 1 )
4. Withholding rent arrears after notice of transfer of ownership constitutes wilful default in payment of rent. (Para 1 )
5. Appeal dismissed; tenant directed to hand over vacant possession of premises by a specified date subject to an undertaking. (Para 1 )
6. Does payment to a previous owner before notice of transfer excuse the failure to pay the new owner after notice?
No. While payment to a previous owner before notice may be acceptable, there is no justification for withholding those arrears from the new owner once notice of the purchase has been served. (Para 1 )
7. What constitutes wilful default in the context of ownership transfer?
Wilful default is established when a tenant fails to pay rent arrears to the current owner after being formally notified of the transfer of ownership. (Para 1 )
8. Is the failure to pay rent for the period between the transfer of ownership and the receipt of notice considered wilful default?
The court held that the failure to pay arrears for the period preceding the notice becomes a wilful default once the tenant is notified of the change in ownership and continues to withhold payment. (Para 1 )
(1) THIS is an appeal by the tenant against the decree for eviction passed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The respondent had purchased the premises from the previous owner on 28/1/1983. On 9/5/1983, he gave a notice to the appellant informing him about the said purchase and also staling that the appellant had defaulted in payment of rent from 1/2/1983. Thereafter, another notice was served by the respondent on 26/12/1983. The appellant deposited rent for the months of April 198 3/01/1984 but he did not deposit the rent for the months of February and March 1983. He has raised the plea that the rent for these two months was paid by him to the previous owner of the premises since he was informed about the purchase by the respondent only by notice dated 9/5/1983 and that he could not be said to have committed wilful default in payment of rent for the months of February and March 1983. It is true that the appellant was informed about the purchase by notice dated 9/5/1983. But after the service of the said notice there was no justification for the appellant to withhold payment of rent to the respondent for the months of February and March 1983. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was no wilful default on the part of the appellant in the payment of rent for the months of February and March 1983. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. But in the circumstances, the appellant is given time to hand over vacant possession of the premises on or before 31/12/1994 subject to the filing of the usual undertaking within a period of six weeks from today. No order as to costs.
