Skip to content


G.V. Ramaswami Iyer Vs. Krishnaveni Ammal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 824 of 1976
Judge
Reported inAIR1978Mad39
ActsTamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Sections 10(2); Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) (Amendment) Act, 1973
AppellantG.V. Ramaswami Iyer
RespondentKrishnaveni Ammal
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- .....above almost gives a definition on wilful default. it makes default in the payment of arrears of rent wilful if the tenant fails to pay or respect the demand for such arrears of rent within two months from the date of such notice of demand. it, therefore, follows that in a case where a tenant defaults in the payment of rent after a demand for the purpose is made by the landlord and he keeps on such a default for a period of two months thereafter, he is deemed to be a wilful defaulter. the respondent is one such. the lower court was wrong in having held that there was no such wilful default although it found that the theory of adjustment and advance trotted by the tenant was not true. i, therefore, set aside the order of the appellate authority and find that the respondent-tenant has.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Ramaprasad Rao, J.

1. The lower appellate Court was wrong in having held that the respondent did not commit wilful default in the matter of payment of rents. That there was an arrear of Rs. 510/- on the date of petition is not in dispute. But the explanation offered by the tenant-respondent was that she paid the taxes due on the property and after deducting the said amount, only a sum of Rupees 398.85 would be due as and by way of arrears of rent, that even this amount was not payable by her since she lent a sum of Rs. 500/- to the landlord's wife and that it was represented that the rent would be adjusted towards the advance made by her. Though the defenc prima facie appears to be attractive, yet, it should fall to the ground for the reason that the petitioner was taking the precaution of giving biennial notices to the tenant under Exs. A-5, B-2 and A-2 once in 1970, secondly in 1972 and on the last occasion in 1974, reminding her of such arrears of rent. There was no reply to such demands for payment of rent. In the light of the Explanation appended to S. 10 (2) which says that for the purposes of this sub-section, default to pay or tender rent shall be construed as wilful, if the default by the tenant in the payment or tender of rent continues after the issue of two months' notice by the landlord claiming the rent, it is proved beyond any doubt that the respondent committed wilful default in the payment of rents. But the question is whether her defence is true. This was found against her by the Court below and in my view, rightly because there was no evidence to support the advance made by the tenant to the landlord's wife. The not result of it is that a sum of Rs. 398.85 remained unpaid in spite of three notices of demand. In spite of the above narration and circumstances, the Court below thought that there was no wilful default. Though prior to the induction of the Explanation to Section 10 (2) as above, Courts were revelling in expression in annotating the expression 'wilful default' yet such revelling explanations and understandings of the expression 'wilful default' is no longer available even to Courts. The explanation referred to above almost gives a definition on wilful default. It makes default in the payment of arrears of rent wilful if the tenant fails to pay or respect the demand for such arrears of rent within two months from the date of such notice of demand. It, therefore, follows that in a case where a tenant defaults in the payment of rent after a demand for the purpose is made by the landlord and he keeps on such a default for a period of two months thereafter, he is deemed to be a wilful defaulter. The respondent is one such. The lower Court was wrong in having held that there was no such wilful default although it found that the theory of adjustment and advance trotted by the tenant was not true. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and find that the respondent-tenant has committed wilful default. The petition for eviction is, therefore, ordered on that ground.

2. The revision petition is allowed. The tenant is granted six months time to vacate.


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