Skip to content


M.A. Mohabool Bi Bi Vs. Ambrose - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1964)1MLJ260
AppellantM.A. Mohabool Bi Bi
RespondentAmbrose
Excerpt:
- .....against the order of dismissal -of her petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and wilful default in payment of the same. the defence to the petition is that the tenant is not in arrears and there is no wilful default on his part. both the rent controller and the appellate authority gave a finding that there was no wilful default on the part of the tenant. hence the petition and the appeal of the landlady were both dismissed. the present revision has been filed by the landlady against the dismissal order.2. originally, the landlady filed an application for owner's occupation. however, both the landlady and the tenant entered into a compromise in and by which the arrears accumulated by that time would be paid in two instalments on two different dates and that the tenant.....
Judgment:

T. Venkatadri, J.

1. The landlady has filed this petition against the order of dismissal -of her petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent and wilful default in payment of the same. The defence to the petition is that the tenant is not in arrears and there is no wilful default on his part. Both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority gave a finding that there was no wilful default on the part of the tenant. Hence the petition and the appeal of the landlady were both dismissed. The present Revision has been filed by the landlady against the dismissal order.

2. Originally, the landlady filed an application for owner's occupation. However, both the landlady and the tenant entered into a compromise in and by which the arrears accumulated by that time would be paid in two instalments on two different dates and that the tenant would also vacate the house within a particular period. As the tenant did not pay the rent as undertaken, the landlady filed an application for eviction of the tenant in the month of May, 1958. The tenant, as soon as he came to know that the landlady had filed a petition for eviction, immediately rushed to Court and paid the amount. On these facts, we have to ascertain whether there is wilful default or 1 of 2. It is true that the tenant having entered into a compromise and given an undertaking that he would pay the amount in two installments on two dates, did not comply with this undertaking. But still, when the landlady filed an application, immediately the tenant paid the amount in Court. On these facts, it is not possible to say that there has been wilful default on the part of the tenant. There has been no supine indifference or carelessness in the payment of rent to the landlady. On these facts therefore, the finding arrived at by the Courts below appears to be correct. In any event, as the tenant had defaulted in not acting as undertaken, he is directed to pay the costs of the landlady (petitioner) is this Revision Petition. The Civil Revision Petition is, otherwise, dismissed.


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