1. Tenant — Non-payment of rent arrears according to strict schedule — Eviction proceedings. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 2316
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., N.P. Singh & Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.
Ganesa Reddiar & Anr. - Petitioner
Versus
Muniappa Reddiar - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. of 1996. (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4306 of 1994
Decided On : 19-01-1996
Important Points
When a revenue authority accepts late payment of rent arrears and refuses to order eviction, it is deemed to have extended the time for payment, and such a decision should not be interfered with by a higher court.
Subject
Civil Law - Tenancy Law
Headnote
(A) Tenancy Law - Payment of arrears - Eviction - Tenant failed to strictly adhere to the time schedule for payment of arrears but paid the full amount. Where the authority accepted the payment and refused to pass an order of eviction, such authority must be deemed to have extended the time for payment. (Para 3)
(B) High Court - Scope of interference - The High Court ought not to interfere with an order where the authority has exercised discretion to accept late payments and refuse eviction. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A tenant was directed to pay arrears in monthly installments. The tenant did not strictly follow the schedule but paid the total amount in three installments, some of which were delayed. The authority accepted these payments and refused to order eviction. The High Court subsequently interfered with this decision, leading to the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
The authority was not precluded from extending the time for payment. By accepting the payments and refusing to evict, the authority is deemed to have extended the time for payment.
Issues: Whether a tenant is liable for eviction for failing to strictly adhere to a payment schedule when the authority accepts the payments and refuses to evict.
Ratio Decidendi: Acceptance of late payments and the refusal to pass an eviction order by the concerned authority constitutes a deemed extension of the time for payment, and such a decision should not be interfered with by the High Court.
Result: Order of the High Court set aside and order of the Revenue Officer restored.
(B) High Court - Scope of interference - The High Court ought not to interfere with an order where the authority has exercised discretion to accept late payments and refuse eviction. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A tenant was directed to pay arrears in monthly installments. The tenant did not strictly follow the schedule but paid the total amount in three installments, some of which were delayed. The authority accepted these payments and refused to order eviction. The High Court subsequently interfered with this decision, leading to the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
The authority was not precluded from extending the time for payment. By accepting the payments and refusing to evict, the authority is deemed to have extended the time for payment.
Issues: Whether a tenant is liable for eviction for failing to strictly adhere to a payment schedule when the authority accepts the payments and refuses to evict.
Ratio Decidendi: Acceptance of late payments and the refusal to pass an eviction order by the concerned authority constitutes a deemed extension of the time for payment, and such a decision should not be interfered with by the High Court.
Result: Order of the High Court set aside and order of the Revenue Officer restored.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether failure to strictly adhere to a payment schedule justifies eviction despite subsequent payment and acceptance by the authority. (Para 2 )
3. Revenue Officer's acceptance of payments and decision not to evict implies a deemed extension of the payment timeline. (Para 3 )
4. Acceptance of delayed payments by the authority without immediate eviction constitutes a deemed extension of the time for payment. (Para 3 )
5. High Court order set aside and Revenue Officer's order restored. (Para 3 )
6. Does failure to strictly follow a payment schedule for rent arrears automatically justify eviction if the authority accepts the payments?
No. Where the revenue officer accepts the payments and refuses to pass an order of eviction, the officer is deemed to have extended the time for payment. (Para 3 )
ORDER :
1. Special leave granted.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer made an order computing the arrears of Rs. 6,000/- and directed the tenant to pay the sum in monthly instalments of Rs. 1,500/- beginning from 20.1.90 and ending on 20.4.90. The tenant did not strictly adhere to the time schedule for payment of the arrears but did pay the arrears by paying Rs. 1,500/- on 24.1.90 late by 4 days, Rs 3,000/- on 30.8.90 and Rs. 1,500 on 4.10.90. The authorities, therefore, came to the conclusion that the cultivating tenant had failed to deposit the same 'as directed' and, therefore, he was liable to be evicted. Thus the eviction is solely on the ground of non-payment of the rent strictly in accordance with the time schedule worked out by the Revenue Officer.
3. It is, however, necessary to realise that there was nothing to preclude the Revenue Officer from extending the time and since he had accepted the payment and refused to pass an order of eviction he must be deemed to have done so. The High Court ought not to have interferred with that order. We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and restore the order of the Revenue' Officer. There will be no order as to costs.
4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
