Back
2004 Supreme(Mad) 256
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN
Abdul Majid - Appellant
Versus
J.Seetha & Others - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No.2722 of 2000 and C.M.P.Nos.14468 of 2000 and 1933 of 2004
Decided On : 23 February 2004
The main legal point established is that wilful default in payment of rent can be determined based on the tenant's compliance with statutory provisions and the refusal of landlords to receive rent.
Headnote:
wilful default - eviction order - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Section 8(5), Section 10(2)(i) - The court discussed the wilful default in payment of rent as claimed by the landlords, the refusal of landlords to receive rent, and the tenant's compliance with the statutory provisions. Key legal provisions include Section 8(5) and Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant was facing eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The landlords claimed that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent for 58 months wilfully at a lower rate than the actual rent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent, as evidenced by the refusal of landlords to receive rent and the tenant's failure to comply with the statutory provisions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent, and whether the refusal of landlords to receive rent justified the tenant's actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the tenant's failure to follow the statutory provisions, specifically Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and the refusal of landlords to receive rent as grounds for finding wilful default.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and the eviction order was confirmed, with costs imposed on the tenant.
The tenant is the revision petitioner. The revision is directed against the eviction order of the learned Rent Controller as confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The eviction sought for on the grounds of own use and occupation and for additional accommodation was negatived by the learned Rent Controller against which no appeal was preferred by the landlords.
2. The petition residential premises has been occupied by the revision petitioner as tenant. The landlords filed the Rent Control Original Petition that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent from December, 1993 till the date of filing of the Rent Control Original Petition for 58 months wilfully at the rate of Rs.100/- per month, as per the finding made in the previous R.C.O.P.No.287 of 1994, though the actual rent was Rs.165/- per month. Therefore, on the ground of wilful default, the said petition was filed.
3. The petition was resisted in the counter denying that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent wilfully as claimed by the landlords. Further, it is stated that the rent sent by money orders regularly to the second respondent herein were refused and therefore, there is no default much-less wilful default in payment of rent as claimed for 58 months. Further, in the counter filed on 29.7.1999 it is also stated that at the very first hearing of the case i.e. on 13.1.1999, the entire arrears of rent and payable upto December, 1998 to the tune of Rs.6,100/- was deposited before the learned Rent Controller and therefore, such payment of rent by deposit of rent cannot be construed as wilful.
4. The learned Rent Controller considering the evidence of the second respondent herein as P.W.1 and also the evidence of the tenant as R.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-3 and Ex.B-1 series, found that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent wilfully as claimed by the landlords and in that view, ordered eviction. Such order challenged by appeal by the tenant was confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. Therefore, the tenant has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant mainly contended that since the landlord, viz., P.W.1, the second respondent herein refused to receive the rent sent by money orders under Ex.B-1 series for the period from January, 1994 to April, 1994 and inasmuch as on the first hearing date of the Rent Control Original Petition, viz., on 13.1.1999, the entire arrears of rent till December, 1998 to the extent of Rs.6,100/- was deposited before the Rent Controller, there have been no default much-less wilful default in payment of rent as claimed by the landlords.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the decision in the case of P.M.Punnoose – vs. - K.M. Munneruddin and others reported in 2003-4 Law Weekly, 671, in which the Supreme Court has ruled in paragraph 18 at page 678:-
"The totality of the conduct of the tenant-appellant, as inferred from the dealings between the parties and the documentary and oral evidence adduced, shows that the appellant has always made an effort at paying or tendering the rent and the delay or default, if any, attributable to the appellant-tenant is bona fide and cannot be said to be wilful in any case."
7. The learned counsel for the respondents/landlords vehemently argued that the tenant has committed default wilfully in payment of rent as claimed, since admittedly the rent of Rs.100/- per month for 61 months to the tune of Rs.6,100/- was deposited only on 13.1.1999 before the Rent Controller. The learned counsel also submitted that though the money orders sent under Ex.B-1 series for the months of January, 1994 to April, 1994 were refused, without resorting to other procedures as contemplated in the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the tenant deposited the rent of Rs.6,100/- towards 61 months and till December, 1998
