9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this legal judgment include the default in payment of rent by the tenant, the procedural requirements of Section 8 of The Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control Act), 1960, and the tenant's compliance with the statutory provisions before seeking benefit under the Act. Default in Payment of Rent: The tenant had initially deposited rent up to October 1990, but the landlords alleged default thereafter. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition, stating that even if there was a default, it was not willful. However, the Rent Control Appellate Authority found the tenant in default from May 1993 onwards, leading to the eviction order. Compliance with Section 8 of the Act: The tenant applied under Section 8(5) of the Act to deposit rent in court, which was allowed by the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority, however, found that the tenant did not follow the prescribed procedure under Section 8, such as notifying the bank for rent deposit. The High Court upheld the eviction order based on non-compliance with Section 8 requirements. Judicial Interpretation of Compliance: The tenant argued that depositing rent in court should be considered compliance with Section 8, as the landlords refused other forms of payment. However, the court emphasized strict compliance with statutory provisions, citing previous cases where failure to follow prescribed procedures led to eviction orders. The court held that the tenant's failure to fulfill Section 8 conditions justified the eviction, regardless of the landlord's refusal to accept rent. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the eviction order due to the tenant's non-compliance with Section 8 requirements. The court emphasized the necessity of following statutory procedures strictly, even in cases where landlords refuse rent payments through other means. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to legal provisions in rent control acts to determine eviction outcomes.
|
