2000 (2) TMI 873 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Default of payment of rent.
2. Determination of "wilful default" under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
3. Validity of eviction proceedings initiated before the expiry of the statutory notice period.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Default of Payment of Rent:
The appellant rented the disputed shop in 1972, with rent progressively increased over the years. By 1989, the rent was Rs. 1000 per month, agreed upon verbally for additional facilities which were not provided by the respondent. The appellant contested the rent hike and filed a suit against the landlord. Despite this, the respondent issued a notice on 9.8.1989 for non-payment of the Rs. 1000 rent from 1.4.1989, leading to eviction proceedings on 20.9.1989. The Rent Controller directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 17,250 for the period from 1.1.1989 to 31.7.1990, which was complied with. The appellant continued paying rent at Rs. 750 per month, which was accepted by the respondent.

2. Determination of "Wilful Default" under Section 10(2)(i):
The Rent Controller, Appellate Authority, and High Court all held that the appellant was a wilful defaulter. The appellant argued that the authorities misinterpreted Explanation I to Section 10(2)(i), which states that default becomes wilful only if it continues for two months after the landlord's notice. Since the eviction petition was filed before the expiry of this period, the appellant could not be considered a wilful defaulter. The Supreme Court examined the statutory provision and concluded that the default could not be deemed wilful as the eviction suit was filed prematurely.

3. Validity of Eviction Proceedings Initiated Before the Expiry of the Statutory Notice Period:
The Supreme Court noted that the notice dated 9.8.1989 required a two-month period to mature into a wilful default, expiring on 9.10.1989. However, the eviction petition was filed on 20.9.1989, before the expiry of the statutory period. Consequently, the appellant did not have the opportunity to rectify the default within the notice period. The Court emphasized that wilful default implies intentional and deliberate non-payment of rent, which was not evident in this case given the premature filing of the eviction suit and the ongoing dispute over the rent amount.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the appellant was not a wilful defaulter. The eviction suit was filed before the statutory notice period expired, and the appellant had a history of regular rent payments. The Court held that the authorities below erred in law by declaring the appellant a wilful defaulter. The judgments of the Rent Controller, Appellate Authority, and High Court were set aside, and the appeal was allowed without costs.