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

2004 Supreme(Mad) 463

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN
A.S.K.Venkatachary - Appellant
Versus
M.Meeran Saheb - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.2206 of 1999
Decided On : 18 March 2004

Advocates Appeared:For The Petitioners:P.Jyothimani, Advocate.

The main legal point established is the interpretation of the tenant's obligation to pay rent regularly and the determination of wilful default under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

Headnote:

wilful default - Rent Control - Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act - Section 11(4), Section 8 - [Section 11(4), Section 8] - The court discussed the tenant's obligation to pay rent regularly, the landlord's acceptance of rent paid collectively, and the tenant's subsequent conduct in paying rent. The court referred to legal provisions under Section 11(4) and Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to determine wilful default in payment of rent. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and the tenant's failure to pay rent regularly.

Fact of the Case:

The landlord filed for eviction due to wilful default in rent payment. The tenant contested, claiming the landlord accepted rent in lump-sum once in three or four months.

Finding of the Court:

The Rent Control Appellate Authority found the tenant did not commit wilful default in rent payment and allowed the appeal. The Civil Revision Petition challenged this decision.

Issues: The main issue was whether the tenant's irregular rent payment constituted wilful default.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the tenant's obligation to pay rent regularly, the landlord's acceptance of collective rent payments, and the tenant's subsequent conduct in paying rent. The court referred to legal provisions under Section 11(4) and Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act to determine wilful default.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

Judgment :-

The revision petitioner is unsuccessful landlord before the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

2. The landlord filed the Rent Control Original Petition for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent from June, 1989 to September, 1989.

3. The petition was contested admitting the quantum of rent at Rs.325/- per month and denying that he has committed default in payment of rent for the months of June, 1989 to September, 1989 as claimed by the landlord and further stating that the landlord was in the habit of receiving rental amount in lump-sum once in three or four months. It is further stated that when the tenant tendered rent for the months of June, 1989 to October, 1989 in November, 1989, the landlord refused to receive the rent demanding higher rent, so the tenant sent the rent for the months of June, 1989 to October, 1989 as per Pay Order of Canara Bank.

4. Before the Rent Controller, the landlord's son was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on the side of the landlord. The tenant was examined as R.W.1. Considering such evidence let in on either side and accepting the case of the landlord, the learned Rent Controller recorded finding that the tenant has committed default in payment of rent wilfully for the months from June, 1989 to September, 1989 and ordered eviction. The order was challenged before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority accepting the case of the tenant that the rent for the months of June, 1989 to October, 1989, viz., Rs.1,625/- was sent by Pay Order of Canara Bank on 30.11.1989 under Ex.A-3 even before the tenant entered appearance on 18.12.1989 in the Rent Control Original Petition and therefore, the tenant has not committed default in payment of rent for the months of June, 1989 to September, 1989. Further, considering the evidence of P.W.1 that entire arrears had been paid before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority by recording finding that the default in payment of rent as claimed for the months of June, 1989 to September, 1989 cannot be construed as wilful and therefore, allowed the Rent Control Appeal. The judgment is challenged by the landlord in this Civil Revision Petition.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlord vehemently contended that it is for the tenant to pay monthly rent regularly and since admittedly, the rent for the months of June, 1989 to September, 1989 was not paid then and there and sent by way of Pay Order of the Canara Bank only on 30.11.1989 under Ex.A-3 representing the rent for the months of June, 1989 to October, 1989, there have been supine indifference and callousness on the part of the tenant, as such, such default in payment of rent for the months of June, 1989 to September, 1989 amounts to wilful. The learned counsel for the landlord also argued that only after the order in I.A.No.288 of 1993 in R.C.O.P.No.526 of 1989 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the tenant paid the entire rental arrears and the said subsequent conduct of the tenant also to be taken into consideration. The learned counsel for the landlord has filed a calculation memo. As per the calculation memo, the rent from March, 1993 to November, 2003 worked out to Rs.41,925.00 for 129 months at the rate of Rs.325/- per month. The tenant has only paid Rs.35,700/-. Still there have been arrears of rent to the extent of Rs.6,225/-. In support of the contention that the subsequent conduct of the tenant also to be taken note of in not paying the rent regularly, the learned counsel for the landlord relied on the following decisions:-

(1) P.Vasuvaithiar – vs. - R.M.Rangoo Chettiar reported in 2000-2 Law Weekly 708, in which this Court has held:-

"Under Rent Control Act, rent is payable as and when it becomes due. It is a statutory obligation on the part of tenant to pay rent, according to the tenancy agreement. If any date is fixed for payment, the same will hav









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 Back to top