9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1985 (1) TMI 306 - SC - Indian LawsInterpretation of the term wilful default appearing in the proviso to section 10 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Buil dings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 Held that - A consensus of the meaning of the words wilful default appears to indicate that default in order to be wilful must be intentional deliberate calculated and conscious with full knowledge of legal consequences flowing therefrom. Taking for instance a case where a tenant commits default after default despite oral demands or reminders and fails to pay the rent without any just or lawful cause it cannot be said that he is not guilty of wilful default because such a course of conduct manifestly amounts to wilful default as contemplated either by the Act or by other Acts referred to above. In civil appeal No. 1178 of 1984 it would appear that though the tenant had committed a default but he had paid the entire rent well before the filing of the suit by the landlord. In fact the suit for eviction was filed by the landlord not on the ground of pending arrears but to penalise the tenant for having defaulted in the past. Such a suit cannot be entertained because once the entire dues are paid to the landlord the cause of action for filing of a suit completely vanishes. Hence the suit arising out of civil appeal No. 1978 of 1984 must be dismissed as being not maintainable and the order of ejectment passed by the High Court is hereby set aside. In civil appeal No. 6211 of 1983 having regard to the tests and the criteria laid down by us there can be no doubt that wilful default in the payment of arrears to the tune of Rs. 900 has been proved and as there is nothing to show that the arrears were not paid or withheld due to circumstances beyond the control of the tenant the order of eviction passed by the High Court is confirmed and the appeal is allowed. In civil appeal No. 1992 of 1982 the arrears having been paid through the Bank Draft the question of eviction of the tenant did not arise nor did the question of default come into the picture merely because the landlord wanted to harass him by filing an eviction petition. The High Court was therefore clearly in error in passing the decree of ejectment against the tenant. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court evicting the tenant. In civil appeal No. 1659 of 1982 as it was clearly a case of wilful default on the part of the tenant we affirm the order of the High Court evicting the tenant and dismiss the appeal. In civil appeal No. 3668 of 1982 some dispute arose between the parties as to whether the rent was to be deposited in Bank resulting in the filing of the present suit for eviction on 1.4.80 in the court of the Rent Controller by the landlord after verifying from the Bank that the tenant had not deposited the rent for the months of January and February 1980. This default in our opinion was undoubtedly deliberate conscious and without any reasonable or rational basis and the High Court was perfectly right in holding that the tenant A was guilty of wilful default and passing a decree for ejectments. As no notice was given by the landlord Explanation to proviso to s. 10 (2) of the Act does not apply at all. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. In civil appeal No. 2246 of 1982 the High Court in revision upheld the order of eviction on the ground that there was no satisfactory explanation for non- payment of rent for the period January to June 1976 was clearly in error because the tenant had already deposited the entire dues including the rent from January to June on 17.7.76. Thus the question of wilful default could not arise nor could it be said that the default was either conscious or deliberate or international. Moreover in view of the Explanation since the tenant had paid the amount within the time of the notice there could be no question of wilful default. This fact seems to have been completely overlooked by the High Court. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court directing eviction of the tenant. In civil appeal No. 4012 of 1982 the tenant occupied the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 325. It appears that the tenant defaulted in payment of tent from June 1976 onwards and after repeated demands only a sum Or Rs. 1000 was paid by him on 1.4 77. leaving a substantial balance of arrears unpaid. This was therefore a clear case of wilful default where the tenant did not pay the rent deliberately consciously and intentionally.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "wilful default" under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 2. The applicability and implications of the proviso and explanation to Section 10(2) of the Act. 3. The validity of eviction orders based on wilful default and other grounds such as subletting and bona fide requirement. Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of "Wilful Default" under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: The primary legal issue in these appeals concerns the interpretation of "wilful default" as mentioned in the proviso to Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The term "wilful default" is explained through an explanation added by Act No. 23 of 1973, which states that default in paying or tendering rent shall be construed as wilful if it continues after the issue of two months' notice by the landlord. The Supreme Court noted that the term "wilful default" generally means a deliberate and intentional default with full knowledge of the legal consequences. The Court referred to various definitions and legal interpretations to conclude that wilful default implies intentional, deliberate, calculated, and conscious conduct. 2. Applicability and Implications of the Proviso and Explanation to Section 10(2) of the Act: The Court examined the scope and impact of the proviso and the explanation to Section 10(2) of the Act. The proviso allows the Rent Controller to give the tenant a reasonable time (not exceeding fifteen days) to pay or tender the rent due if the default is not wilful. The explanation added by Act No. 23 of 1973 clarifies that default is wilful if it continues after a two-month notice by the landlord. The Court held that the explanation provides a clear criterion to determine wilful default but does not take away the Controller's discretion to decide if the default is wilful in cases where no notice is given. The Court stated that if no notice is given, the Controller can examine whether the default is wilful. If a two-month notice is given and the tenant does not pay the rent, it is presumed to be wilful default unless the tenant proves otherwise. 3. Validity of Eviction Orders Based on Wilful Default and Other Grounds: The Court reviewed several appeals where eviction orders were challenged based on wilful default and other grounds such as subletting and bona fide requirement. The Court's decisions are summarized as follows: - Civil Appeal No. 1178 of 1984: The tenant paid the entire rent before the suit was filed. The Court held that the suit for eviction should have been dismissed as there was no cause of action. The appeal was dismissed. - Civil Appeal No. 6211 of 1983: The tenant failed to pay rent despite reminders. The Court confirmed the wilful default and upheld the eviction order. - Civil Appeal No. 1992 of 1982: The tenant paid the arrears within the stipulated time after receiving a notice. The Court held that there was no wilful default and set aside the eviction order. - Civil Appeal No. 1659 of 1982: The tenant failed to pay rent despite notice. The Court confirmed the wilful default and upheld the eviction order. - Civil Appeal No. 3668 of 1982: The tenant did not deposit rent in the bank as agreed. The Court held that the default was deliberate and upheld the eviction order. - Civil Appeal No. 2246 of 1982: The tenant paid the arrears within the notice period. The Court held that there was no wilful default and set aside the eviction order. - Civil Appeal No. 4012 of 1982: The tenant failed to pay rent despite repeated demands. The Court confirmed the wilful default and upheld the eviction order. The Court emphasized that the Rent Controller must consider whether the default is wilful based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the explanation to the proviso provides a guideline but does not eliminate the Controller's discretion.
|
