Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3067
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA
YASODHARAN & ANOTHER
Versus
M. LALITHA
C.R.P.(NPD).NO. 2832 OF 2009 & M.P. NO. 1 OF 2009
Decided On :DECIDED ON : 28-07-2010
FOR THE PETITIONERS:G. HANUMANTHA RAO, ADVOCATE.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:S. SILAMBANAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SANTHANAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE.
The legal principle established is that wilful default in rent payment requires intentional and deliberate non-payment, and if rents are paid within two months from the date of notice, wilful default cannot be presumed.
Headnote:
WILFUL DEFAULT - TENANCY DISPUTE - TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT - SECTIONS 10(2)(I) AND 10(2)(II)
Fact of the Case:
The landlady filed for eviction of tenants under Sections 10(2)(I) and 10(2)(II) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, alleging wilful default in rent payment and sub-letting of the premises. The tenants contested the eviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenants had paid the rent within two months of the notice, negating the claim of wilful default. The court set aside the lower court's decision and dismissed the eviction petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the tenants had committed wilful default in rent payment, as alleged by the landlady.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal interpretations of 'wilful default' and emphasized that if rents are paid within two months from the date of notice, wilful default cannot be presumed. The court also highlighted the duty of tenants to pay rent and the landlord's obligation to receive it.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, the orders of the lower courts were set aside, and the eviction petition was dismissed. No costs were awarded.
1. ANIMADVERTING UPON THE ORDER DATED DATED 23.7.2009 PASSED BY THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY(VIII SMALL CAUSES COURT) CHENNAI, IN R.C.A.NO.580 OF 2007 CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 14.6.2007 PASSED BY THE XII JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSE, CHENNAI, IN RCOP NO.253 OF 2007, THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FOCUSSED BY THE TENANTS.
2. BROADLY BUT BRIEFLY, NARRATIVELY BUT PRECISELY THE RELEVANT FACTS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY AND GERMANE FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THIS REVISION PETITION WOULD RUN THUS:
(A) THE RESPONDENT/LANDLADY FILED THE RCOP NO.253 OF 2007 INVOKING SECTIONS 10(2)(I) AND 10(2)(II)
(A) OF THE TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT (FOR SHORT, THE ACT), ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:
(I) THE TENANTS COMMITTED WILFUL DEFAULT IN PAYING THE RENTS;
(II) THE PREMISES CONCERNED WAS SUB-LET BY THE FIRST PETITIONER HEREIN TO THE SECOND PETITIONER.
(B) ULTIMATELY, THE RENT CONTROLLER ORDERED EVICTION ONLY ON THE GROUND OF WILFUL DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF RENT.
(C) AS AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, THE TENANTS PREFERRED THE APPEAL IN RCA NO.580 OF 2007, FOR NOTHING BUT TO BE DISMISSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY.
(D) BEING AGGRIEVED BY AND DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDERS THE COURTS BELOW, THE TENANTS PREFERRED THIS REVISION ON VARIOUS GROUNDS.
3. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE GROUNDS OF REVISION, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVISION PETITIONERS/TENANTS WOULD DEVELOP HIS ARGUMENTS, THE WARP AND WOOF OF THEM WOULD RUN THUS:
(I) ADMITTEDLY, AS PER THE LANDLADY THE PRE-LITIGATION NOTICE WAS SENT ON 16.12.2006, WHEREAS TENANTS SENT THE RENTS BY MONEY ORDER, BUT IT WAS REFUSED AND AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO WILFUL DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE TENANTS IN PAYING THE RENTS.
(II) THE COURTS BELOW FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SAID FACT AND SIMPLY HELD AS THOUGH THE TENANTS COMMITTED WILFUL DEFAULT.
ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVISION PETITIONERS/TENANTS WOULD PRAY FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE COURTS BELOW AND FOR DISMISSING THE RCOP.
4. BY WAY OF TORPEDOING AND PULVERISING THE ARGUMENTS AS PUT FORTH ON THE SIDE OF THE REVISION PETITIONERS/TENANTS, THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT/LANDLADY WOULD DEVELOP HIS ARGUMENTS, THE GIST AND KERNAL OF THEM WOULD RUN THUS:
IT IS THE BOUNDEN DUTY OF THE TENANTS TO PAY THE RENT AND EVEN IN THE CASE OF A LANDLADY REFUSING TO RECEIVE THE RENT, SECTION 8 OF THE ACT SHOULD BE RESORTED TO BY THE TENANTS AND THEY WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN SIMPLY REFRAINING FROM PAYING THE RENTS IN ALLOWING THE ARREARS TO ACCRUE.
6. HEARD BOTH SIDES.
7. THE POINT FOR CONSIDERATION IS AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS ANY WILFUL DEFAULT IN PAYING THE RENT ON THE PART OF THE TENANTS IN FAVOUR OF THE LANDLADY AND WHETHER THE COURTS BELOW FELL INTO ERROR IN GIVING A FINDING THAT THERE WAS WILFUL DEFAULT?
8. A MERE PERUSAL AND PORING OVER OF THE TYPED SET OF PAPERS AND THE RECORDS AVAILABLE BEFORE ME, WOULD EXEMPLIFY AND DEMONSTRATE THAT AS PER THE LANDLADY THE NOTICE DEMANDING RENT WAS SENT ON 16.12.2006 STATING THAT FROM SEPTEMBER 2006 ONWARDS THE RENTS WERE NOT PAID. WHEREAS, THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD AS REVEALED BY EXS.R3 AND R4 WOULD EVINCE AND DISPLAY THAT THE TENANTS SENT THE FOUR MONTHS RENT I.E. RENT FOR THE MONTHS OF SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER 2006 ON 10.1.2007 AND THE SAID MONEY ORDER WAS FOUND RETURNED AS REFUSED.
9. IT IS THEREFORE CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM 16.12.2006, SO TO SAY THE DATE OF NOTICE, THE TENANTS PAID THE RENT AND THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUEST OF THE LANDLADY.
10. IN THIS CONNECTION I WOULD LIKE TO RECOLLECT AND CALL UP THE FOLLOWING DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE APEX COURT: (2000)3 SUPREME COURT CASES 282- CHORDIA AUTOMOBILES V. S.MOOSA AND OTHERS.
“8. WILFUL DEFAULT MEANS AN ACT CONSCIOUSLY OR DELIBERATELY DONE WITH OPEN DEFIANCE AND INTENT NOT TO PAY THE RENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AMOUNT OF RENT DEFAULTED FIRSTLY IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE AGENT OF THE LANDLORD DID NOT COME TO COLLECT THE RENT FOR SOME REASON. FURTHER, NOTICE OF DEFAULT CONTAINED
