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

1969 Supreme(Mad) 168

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. S. Palaniswamy, J.
K. Venugopal
Versus
P. S. Doyal Prasad
C.R.P. No. 68 of 1968.
Decided On : 01 April 1969

Advocates:
Balasubramaniam, N. M. Manivarma, M. S. Ethiraj and A. S. Udyashankar, for Petitioner.
M.A. Ghatala, for Respondent.

Stipulation that tenant to pay rent in advance on first of every month, does not violate provision of Act.

Headnote:Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960), sections 7 and 10 (2) (i) -Tenancy agreement - Stipulation that tenant to pay rent in advance on first of every month, does not violate provision of Act.

       

JUDGMENT:-

This revision has been filed under section 25 of the Madias Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the tenant of a non-residential building against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Madras and affirmed on appeal by the appellate authority on the ground that he had committed wilful default in the payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 25 per month from 1st June, 1964 to 28th February, 1966. The premises in question originally belonged to One Rathna Bai, to whom the petitioner had executed the latter Exhibit P-1 on 1st March, 1957 agreeing to pay the rent in advance by the first of every month. The respondent-landlord purchased the premises from Rathna Bai, and thereafter, the petitioner made an endorsement of Exhibit P-1 on 1st July, 1963 agreeing to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 25 per month as against Rs. 20 payable previously under the terms contained therein. Alleging that the petitioner had committed wilful default in the payment of rent for the months of April, to May, 1964, the respondent applied for eviction of the petitioner in H.R.C.No. 2733 of 1964 on the file of the Rent Controller, Madras. The Rent Controller found that there was wilful default in the payment of rent for the month of April, 1964 and directed eviction. Against that order, the tenant-petitioner filed H.R.A. No. 223 of 1965 on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Madras. The Appellate Authority reversed the decision of the Rent Controller and held that the default was not wilful. In that view, the petition for eviction was dismissed. That order was passed on 28th August, 1965. The respondent alleged in the petition, out of which this revision has arisen, that the petitioner committed wilful default from 1st June, 1964 to 28th February, 1966. The petitioner contended that he tendered the rent by money order, that the tender was refused by the respondent and that he had not committed default. The Rent Controller held that under the terms of the lease, the rent was payable by the first of every month for that month that the tenders made by the petitioner was informed of his defaulty by notice, that in spite of such reminder, he committed default and that therefore the default was wilful. He held that from 1st June, 1964 to 28th February, 1966 the petitioner committed wilful default. In the appeal preferred by the tenant, the appellate authority agreed with the Rent Controller and dismissed it.

Mr. Balasubramaniam, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the terms agreed upon by the petitioner under Exhibit P-1 are not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, that what was stipulated was payment of advance rent and that in as much as such a stipulation runs during the entire period of tenancy it is invalid. He developed his argument by contending that under the provisions of the Act, the landlord is entitled to claim only one month’s rent as advance and that the contract between the parties as evidenced by Exhibit P-1 violates that mandatory provision, I am conviced that though this argument is ingenious, it is devoid of substance. Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act fixes the time for payment of the rent. According to that section, the tenant is liable to pay or tender the rent due by him in respect of the building within 15 days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. This provision contemplates an agreement between the landlord and tenant as regards the time for payment of the rent. There is nothing to show that such time for payment should be only after the expiry of the month for which rent is payable. Parties may stipulate for payment of the rent on the first of the month for which rent is payable or during the period of the month for which the rent is payable or at the end of that particular month. If any date is fi





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