Skip to content


S.P. Deshmukh Vs. Shah Nihal Chand Waghajibai Gujarati - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 325 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1977SC1985; (1977)3SCC515; [1976]SuppSCR486; 1977(9)LC485(SC)
ActsConstitution of India - Article 227
AppellantS.P. Deshmukh
RespondentShah Nihal Chand Waghajibai Gujarati
Appellant Advocate K.Sramamurthy,; K. Jataram and; R. Chandrashekhar, Advs
Respondent Advocate L.N. Sinha, ; S.N. Prasad and ; Grish Chandra, Advs.
Prior historyFrom the judgement and Order dated 28th March 1969 of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 490/68
Excerpt:
.....contrary - such contract can be spelt out from conduct of parties - tenant had been in habit of paying rent at interval of 3 or 4 months to which landlord had no objection - tenant was not in arrears when proceedings for his eviction were commenced - under such circumstances high court should not have accepted contention of landlord in light of findings of rent controller and collector that tenant was not habitual defaulter - held, high court exceeded its jurisdiction under article 227 and order liable to be set aside. - - 1. even after hearing an interesting argument from mr. the landlord never complained of any irregularity on the part of the tenant in paying rent and indeed the tenant was not in arrears of a paisa when the present proceedings for his eviction were commenced by..........collector that the tenant was not a habitual defaulter. normally, a monthly tenant is under an obligation to pay the rent from month to month but this obligation is subject to a contract to the contrary. such a contract need not be reflected in a formal document and can be spelt out from the conduct of the parties, spread over a fairly long period of time. the evidence in the case, which was believed by the two tribunals of fact, shows that the tenant has been paying rent at an interval of 3 or 4 months, which the landlord has been willingly accepting and always without even so much as a murmur. the landlord never complained of any irregularity on the part of the tenant in paying rent and indeed the tenant was not in arrears of a paisa when the present proceedings for his eviction were.....
Judgment:

Y.V. Chandrachud, J.

1. Even after hearing an interesting argument from Mr. Nariman, who appears on behalf of the respondent-landlord, we are left in no doubt that the High Court, inspite of several decisions of this Court, has manifestly exceeded the limits of its narrow jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. We are unable to appreciate that the High Court should have persuaded itself to accept the contention of the landlord in the teeth of the concurrent finding of the Rent Controller and the Collector that the tenant was not a habitual defaulter. Normally, a monthly tenant is under an obligation to pay the rent from month to month but this obligation is subject to a contract to the contrary. Such a contract need not be reflected in a formal document and can be spelt out from the conduct of the parties, spread over a fairly long period of time. The evidence in the case, which was believed by the two tribunals of fact, shows that the tenant has been paying rent at an interval of 3 or 4 months, which the landlord has been willingly accepting and always without even so much as a murmur. The landlord never complained of any irregularity on the part of the tenant in paying rent and indeed the tenant was not in arrears of a paisa when the present proceedings for his eviction were commenced by the landlord. In these circumstances, the judgment of the High Court is calculated to cause, rather than correct, a grave injustice. The High Court, therefore, ought not to have interfered in the matter.

2. Accordingly, we set aside the High Court's Judgment and allow this appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //