1996 JTR(SC) 1424
1997 DNJ 58 ; 1996 4 ICC 586 ; 1997 1 MLJ 109 ; 1997 1 RCJ 579 ; 1997 2 RCJ 225 ; 1996 2 RCR(Rent) 573 ; 1996 7 Scale 290 ; 1996 6 SCC 228 ; 1996 Supp5 SCR 778 ; 1996 7 Supreme 389
1996(7) Supreme 389
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, Faizan Uddin and
G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
M. Bhaskar -Appellant
versus
J. Venkatarama Naidu, Rep. by his Power
of Attorney Holder A. Narayanaswamy
Naidu -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 12380 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.
17203 of 1996)
Decided on 10-9-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : A. Subba Rao, A.D.N. Rao, Advocates.
For the Respondent : L.N. Rao, V. Sridhar Reddy, G. Rama Krishan and S.U.K. Sagar, Advocates.
Act Referred :ANDHRA PRADESH BUILDINGS LEASE, RENT AND EVICTION CONTROL ACT : S.11, S.8, S.10(2)(i)
(A) The applicability of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, specifically Sections 10(2)(i), 8, and 11, is pivotal in this eviction proceeding where the tenant is alleged to have committed wilful default in rent payments from June 1990 to October 1990. Section 10(2)(i) provides the statutory basis for eviction on the ground of such default, while Section 8 outlines the procedural safeguards requiring the landlord to first name the bank for rent payment or for the tenant to seek prior permission from the Rent Controller for depositing rent. Section 11 imposes a corresponding obligation on the tenant to utilize this prescribed remedy, and failure to do so does not preclude the landlord from pursuing eviction under the substantive provisions for wilful default.
(B) Key legal principles include that a tenant in possession has an absolute obligation to pay rent regularly, and non-payment constitutes wilful default irrespective of the landlord's conduct or the tenant's access to the premises. The law mandates a specific procedural mechanism under Section 8 for rent payment disputes, but non-availability or non-availing of this procedure does not absolve the tenant of liability for eviction if default is established. Additionally, familial relationships or informal arrangements do not override the statutory requirement for timely and regular rent payment.
Facts of the case:
The dispute arose under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, where the respondent-landlord sought eviction of the appellant-tenant for alleged wilful default in rent payment from June 1990 to October 1990. The appellant contended that the landlord was residing in Hyderabad and that his brother-in-law, the power of attorney holder, was his maternal uncle, with rent being paid whenever the landlord visited Madanpalle, thereby arguing against the characterization of default. The courts below held that the appellant, despite his relationship with the landlord, failed to adhere to the mandatory obligation of regular rent payment and did not utilize the procedural remedy under Section 8 or the deposit mechanism under Section 11, thus entitling the landlord to eviction for wilful default.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the appellant's contention, emphasizing that tenancy obligations are irrespective of the landlord's presence or the existence of a familial relationship. It held that the appellant's omission to follow the procedure under Section 11, including the failure to seek permission to deposit rent or to name a bank account under Section 8, did not preclude the landlord from pursuing eviction for the alleged wilful default in rent. The courts below concluded that the appellant's conduct amounted to a breach of the tenant's fundamental obligation to pay rent, thereby justifying eviction under Section 10(2)(i).
Issues:
Whether the tenant's failure to pay rent, coupled with non-availing of the procedural remedies under Sections 8 and 11, constitutes wilful default justifying eviction even when the landlord is alleged to be avoiding payment and the tenant has a familial relationship with the landlord.
Ratio Decidendi:
A tenant in occupation owes an absolute duty to pay rent regularly, and non-payment amounts to wilful default, rendering the tenant liable for eviction under Section 10(2)(i). Non-availing of the procedural remedy under Section 8 or the deposit facility under Section 11 does not bar eviction, as statutory compliance is distinct from the substantive obligation of rent payment, and informal arrangements or familial ties do not override this liability.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with three months' time granted to the appellant to vacate the premises upon furnishing an undertaking, without awarding costs.
(A) The applicability of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, specifically Sections 10(2)(i), 8, and 11, is pivotal in this eviction proceeding where the tenant is alleged to have committed wilful default in rent payments from June 1990 to October 1990. Section 10(2)(i) provides the statutory basis for eviction on the ground of such default, while Section 8 outlines the procedural safeguards requiring the landlord to first name the bank for rent payment or for the tenant to seek prior permission from the Rent Controller for depositing rent. Section 11 imposes a corresponding obligation on the tenant to utilize this prescribed remedy, and failure to do so does not preclude the landlord from pursuing eviction under the substantive provisions for wilful default.
(B) Key legal principles include that a tenant in possession has an absolute obligation to pay rent regularly, and non-payment constitutes wilful default irrespective of the landlord's conduct or the tenant's access to the premises. The law mandates a specific procedural mechanism under Section 8 for rent payment disputes, but non-availability or non-availing of this procedure does not absolve the tenant of liability for eviction if default is established. Additionally, familial relationships or informal arrangements do not override the statutory requirement for timely and regular rent payment.
Facts of the case:
The dispute arose under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, where the respondent-landlord sought eviction of the appellant-tenant for alleged wilful default in rent payment from June 1990 to October 1990. The appellant contended that the landlord was residing in Hyderabad and that his brother-in-law, the power of attorney holder, was his maternal uncle, with rent being paid whenever the landlord visited Madanpalle, thereby arguing against the characterization of default. The courts below held that the appellant, despite his relationship with the landlord, failed to adhere to the mandatory obligation of regular rent payment and did not utilize the procedural remedy under Section 8 or the deposit mechanism under Section 11, thus entitling the landlord to eviction for wilful default.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the appellant's contention, emphasizing that tenancy obligations are irrespective of the landlord's presence or the existence of a familial relationship. It held that the appellant's omission to follow the procedure under Section 11, including the failure to seek permission to deposit rent or to name a bank account under Section 8, did not preclude the landlord from pursuing eviction for the alleged wilful default in rent. The courts below concluded that the appellant's conduct amounted to a breach of the tenant's fundamental obligation to pay rent, thereby justifying eviction under Section 10(2)(i).
Issues:
Whether the tenant's failure to pay rent, coupled with non-availing of the procedural remedies under Sections 8 and 11, constitutes wilful default justifying eviction even when the landlord is alleged to be avoiding payment and the tenant has a familial relationship with the landlord.
Ratio Decidendi:
A tenant in occupation owes an absolute duty to pay rent regularly, and non-payment amounts to wilful default, rendering the tenant liable for eviction under Section 10(2)(i). Non-availing of the procedural remedy under Section 8 or the deposit facility under Section 11 does not bar eviction, as statutory compliance is distinct from the substantive obligation of rent payment, and informal arrangements or familial ties do not override this liability.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with three months' time granted to the appellant to vacate the premises upon furnishing an undertaking, without awarding costs.
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard teamed counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh made on July 9, 1996 in CRP No. 4290/95. The matter arises under Section 10(2)(i) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The principal ground for eviction ordered by all the three courts below is that the appellant has committed wilful default in the payment of the rent from the month of June 1990 till October 31, 1990.
3. The contention of Shri Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the respondent-landlord was staying in Hyderabad and the power of attorney holder is his brother-in-law-cum-matenal uncle and that whenever he was coming to Madanpalle, he was paying the rents and, therefore, there is a contract to the contrary. We find no substance in the contention. Though parties are related, nonetheless when the appellant is staying in the premises as tenant, he has got an obligation to pay the rent regularly. If he does not do so, he commits wilful default. If he finds that the landlord is evading the payment of rent, procedure has been prescribed under Section 8 of the Act to issue notice to the landlord to name the bank and if he does not name the bank, the tenant has to file an application before the Rent Controller for permission to deposit the rent. The appellant did not avail of that remedy. The omission to avail of the procedure under Section 11 does not disentitle the landlord to seek eviction for wilful default.
4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, three months time from today is granted to the appellant to vacate the premises on his giving an usual undertaking without four weeks from today. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
******