9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal electricity load, a water tap and a separate lavatory. For doing these, the appellant offered and respondent agreed on condition that the rent be further enhanced form ₹ 750/- to ₹ 1,000/- p.m. On this oral agreement the appellant spent about ₹ 1,00,000/- on renovation. However, the respondents failed to discharge their obligations for providing the aforesaid additional facilities despite repeated requests. On respondents' failure to do so, the appellant filed a suit against him that the landlord was not entitled to claim this enhanced rent of ₹ 1,000/- p.m. In support he stated that on the ground floor there are nine shops including the one with the appellant, similarly situated, but none of these shops have any rental of ₹ 1,000/- p.m. 3. Instead of complying with the said conditions, the appellant received respondent's notice dated 9.8.1989 through his advocate that the agreed rent of ₹ 1,000/- p.m. from 1.4.1989 has not been paid in spite of demands. Before any reply could be sent the appellant was served with a copy of the eviction proceedings dated 27.9.1989 under Section 10(2)(i) of the aforesaid Act. The appellant contested ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eviction petition on 20.9.1989, hence on that date the appellant could not be said to be a wilful defaulter nor it was possible for the appellant to send any reply, as the eviction suit itself was filed before the expiry of the said 60 days. For ready reference Section 10(2)(i) is quoted here-under: 10. Eviction of tenants. (1) A tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this Section or Sections 14 to 16: (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf, If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied- (i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building, within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable, or Provided that in any case falling under clause (i) if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant's default to pay or tender rent was not wilful, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout any default. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that fixation of rent under Section 11 and payment thereafter is no defence for the default. This adjudication is interim in nature and is subject to the final decision by the court. Further in spite of notice, neither any reply was sent by the appellant nor the amount was tendered. Even thereafter he took number of adjournments before the Rent Controller, hence all this constitute to be a case of a wilful default. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined their submissions and made overall assessment to judge, whether any wilful default was committed or not by the tenant. It is not disputed by the landlord that the appellant is a tenant of this accommodation since 1972 and was regularly paying the rent in the past. The only default is, as aforesaid, for the disputed period from 1.1.1989 to 31.3.1989 at the rate of ₹ 750/- p.m. and from 1.4.1989 to 31.7.1989 at the rate of ₹ 1000/- p.m. These facts reveal that there is a default towards payment of rent by the tenant for the aforesaid period. The only question is, whether this default on these facts would constit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndlord did not come to collect the rent for some reason. Further, notice of default contained disputed rent. This fact coupled with the fact that eviction suit was filed before maturing a case of wilful default in terms of the Explanation to the proviso of Section 10(2). The dispute of rent admittedly was genuine. Further, we find conduct of the appellant throughout in the past being not of a defaulter or irregular payer of rent. Thus, all these circumstances cumulatively come to only one conclusion that the appellant cannot be held to be a wilful defaulter. 9. In S. Sundaram Pillai and Ors. v. V.R. Pattabiraman and Ors. [1985] 2 SCR 643 this Court had occasion to consider the word 'Wilful default' under Section 10(2) of the aforesaid of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 which is reproduced below: Before, however, going into this question further, let us find out the real meaning and content of the word 'willful or the words 'wilful default'. In the book A Dictionary of Law by L.B. Curzon, at page 361 the words 'wilful' and 'wilful default' have been defined thus: 'Wilful' - deliberate conduct of a perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
