Back
2017 Supreme(Megh) 59
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Shri. Paul Leong - Appellant
Vs.
The Archdiocese of Shillong - Respondent
R.F.A. No.1 of 2013
Decided On : 23-02-2017
For the Appellant :Shri. MF Quershi, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri. HL Shangreiso, Advocate
A tenant who defaults on rent payments may be liable for eviction, even if there is no allegation of 'wilful' default.
Headnote:
The court held that the defendant-tenant was liable for eviction and arrears of rent for defaulting on rent payments. The court found that the tenancy agreement was valid and binding on the parties, and that the defendant-tenant had failed to pay the agreed-upon rent for several months. The court also found that the defendant-tenant's offer to pay a reduced rent was not a valid payment of the lawful rent, and that his deposit of rent in court did not wipe out his default. The court rejected the defendant-tenant's arguments that he could not be held liable for eviction because there was no allegation of 'wilful' default, and that the plaintiff-landlord had accepted intermittent rent payments.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendant-tenant. The defendant-tenant contested the suit, claiming that the tenancy agreement was invalid, that he had paid the agreed-upon rent, and that he could not be held liable for eviction because there was no allegation of 'wilful' default.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenancy agreement was valid and binding on the parties, and that the defendant-tenant had failed to pay the agreed-upon rent for several months. The court also found that the defendant-tenant's offer to pay a reduced rent was not a valid payment of the lawful rent, and that his deposit of rent in court did not wipe out his default. The court rejected the defendant-tenant's arguments that he could not be held liable for eviction because there was no allegation of 'wilful' default, and that the plaintiff-landlord had accepted intermittent rent payments.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenancy agreement was valid and binding on the parties? 2. Whether the defendant-tenant had paid the agreed-upon rent? 3. Whether the defendant-tenant's offer to pay a reduced rent was a valid payment of the lawful rent? 4. Whether the defendant-tenant's deposit of rent in court wiped out his default? 5. Whether the defendant-tenant could be held liable for eviction because there was no allegation of 'wilful' default? 6. Whether the plaintiff-landlord had accepted intermittent rent payments?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tenancy agreement was valid and binding on the parties, and that the defendant-tenant had failed to pay the agreed-upon rent for several months. The court also found that the defendant-tenant's offer to pay a reduced rent was not a valid payment of the lawful rent, and that his deposit of rent in court did not wipe out his default. The court rejected the defendant-tenant's arguments that he could not be held liable for eviction because there was no allegation of 'wilful' default, and that the plaintiff-landlord had accepted intermittent rent payments. The court found that the defendant-tenant had inexcusably and wilfully defaulted in payment of rent, and that his own conduct operated heavily against him.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendant-tenant's appeal and upheld the trial court's judgment and decree for eviction and arrears of rent. However, the court provided that the execution of the decree for eviction would be stayed for 90 days, subject to the condition that the defendant-tenant would not remain in arrears of rent, would not sublet or part with the possession to anyone else, and would not cause any material alteration of the premises in question.
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Preliminary
2. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant-tenant is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 14.11.2012 as passed in Title Suit No.9 (H) of 2003, whereby the learned Assistant District Judge, Shillong has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, essentially after finding that the defendant-tenant had been a defaulter in payment of rent.
3. It may be noticed at the outset that three title suits between the same parties, bearing numbers 8(H) of 2003, 9(H) of 2003 and 10(H) of 2003 and relating to different tenancies in different portions of the same building, were decided together by the impugned common judgment dated 14.11.2012. Initially, the defendant-appellant attempted to assail the decrees passed in the three suits by way of this single appeal but on 10.03.2016, an objection was raised on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent on the maintainability of single appeal against the decrees so passed in three suits whereupon, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submitted that he was not pressing on his challenge to the decrees passed in Title Suit No. 8 (H) of 2003 and Title Suit No. 10 (H) of 2003; and was confining this appeal only in relation to the decree passed in Title Suit No. 9 (H) of 2003. Having regard to the submissions made, this Court clarified the position by the order dated 10.03.2016 as under:
"10.03.2016
Although learned counsel appearing for the respondent(plaintiff) has rightly raised the objection that a single appeal against the judgment passed in three different Title Suits Nos.8, 9 and 10(H) 2003 cannot be maintained because separate decrees were passed in separate suits but then, learned counsel for the appellant submits that so far title Suit Nos.8(H) of 2003 and 10(H) of 2003 are concerned, the appellant is not pressing on his challenge in the relation with the decree passed therein; and is limiting this appeal only in relation to Title Suit No.9(H)2003.
In view of the submission so made on behalf of the appellant, to put the record straight, it is observed that this appeal shall be considered in relation to the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2012 as passed by the Assistant District Judge, Shillong only in relation to title suit No.9(H)2003. As a necessary corollary, it follows that the decrees passed in title suit Nos.8(H) and 10(H)2003 have not been challenged by the appellant and they shall be considered having attained finality, of course, without prejudice to the right of the appellant of making submissions in the present appeal.
For the observations foregoing, it follows that the plaintiff/respondent shall be free to seek execution of the decrees passed in Title Suit Nos.8(H) and 10(H) of 2003, in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time for preparing the matter for final hearing.
List the matter for final hearing on 30.03.2016, as prayed."
The relevant background aspects
4. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suits aforesaid, seeking eviction of the defendant-appellant from the respective suit premises and recovery of arrears of rent with the averments that the parties had entered into three tenancy agreements dated 07.06.2002 in respect of different portions of the three-storied RCC building, known as "Salonsar Mansion" and situated at Jail Road, Shillong. The respondent averred in the plaint relating to T. S. No. 9(H) of 2003, inter alia, that as per the terms and conditions mutually agreed upon in the tenancy agreement dated 07.06.2002, an area admeasuring about 4,500 sq.ft. at the ground floor of the building aforesaid was let out to the defendant-appellant at the monthly rent of Rs. 40,500/-; that the rent was payable in the first week of every English calendar month; and that the tenancy was for a period of 5 years w
