ABDUL KADER versus G.D. GOVINDARAJ (D) BY LRS.

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 460 · Decided: 24-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ABDUL KADER 
v. 
G.D. GOVINDARAJ (D) BY LRS. 
APRIL 24, 2002 
B 
[R.C LAHOTI AND B.N. AGRA WAL, JJ.] 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: 
S.10(2)(1), Explanation-Tenant in arrears of rent-Eviction oftenant-
C Tenant to pay, in addition of monthly rent, half of annual property tax-
Tenant failed to pay rent for three months as also amount of property tax for 
three years-On receipt of notice tenant tendered only monthly rent and not 
property tax-Landlord refused to accept it being insufficient and filed suit 
after statutory period of two months-Held, the amount of taxes agreed to by 
D the tenant to be paid to landlord was a part of rent and the word 'rent' in 
s.10(2)(i) has to be construed accordingly-According to the Explanation 
appended t<j sub-section (2) of s. 10, the default to pay or tender rent shall be 
construed wilful if default in payment or tender continues after issue of two 
months' notice by landlord for clearing the arrears-No fault can be found 
with the view of High Court holding the tenant guilty of wilful default in 
E payment of rent and hence liable to be evicted u!s. 10(2)(i). 
S. Sundaram v. V.R. Pattabhiraman, AIR (1985) SC 582, relied on. 
S. 10(2)(i)-'Rent '-Held, the amount of taxes agreed to by the tenant 
to be paid to landlord was a part of rent and the word 'rent' in s. 10(2)(i) has 
F 
to be construed accordingly. 
Karani Properties Ltd v. Miss Augustine and Ors., AIR (1957) SC 309, 
relied on. 
Messrs. Raval and Company v. KG. Ramachandran (Minor) and Ors., 
G (1968) 2 MLJ 50, referred to. 
H 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 644-645 
of 2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.2000 of the Chennai High 
460 
-
ABDUL KADER v. G.D. GOVINDARAJ 
461 
Court in C.R.P. Nos. 970 and 971 of 1995. 
A 
V. Ramasubramanian for the Appellant. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
These are tenant's appeals by Special Leave against whom a decree for B 
eviction from the suit premises has been passed on the ground available 
under clause (i) of sub-Section (2) of Section I 0 of the Tamil Na.du Buildings 
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter the 'Act', for short). 
The relevant facts are not in controversy. The premises are held by the 
tenant under a written contract of lease dated 1.1.1988 whereby the rent for C 
the premises has been agreed to at Rs. 100 per month. Over and above, the 
amount of rent, the tenant has agreed to pay to the landlord a sum of Rs. 111 
equivalent to one half of the annual property tax payable in the respect of the 
property. The tenant did not pay the rent due ·and payable for the months of 
January, February and March, 1990. The tenant had also not paid the amount D 
due and payable on account of property tax@ Rs. 111 for the years 1987-
1988, 1988-1989 and 1989-1990. Here, it may be stated that even prior to 
1.1.1989, the tenant was holding the premises under a previous deed of 
leases, the only difference being that earlier the rate of rent was Rs. 60 per 
month, though, so far as the stipulation to pay the amount of property tax 
is concerned, it was the same and had remained unaltered. On renewal of E 
lease, under the deed dated 1.1.1989 in substance the change was brought 
about only in the rate of monthly rent. 
On 26.3 .1990, The landlord served a notice on the tenant demanding 
rent for the months of January to March, 1990 and also the amount of taxes 
> 
due and payable by the tenant, as stated hereinabove. On 2.4.1990, the tenant F 
tendered an amount of Rs. 300 to the landlord but not the amount of taxes. 
The tender was refused by the landlord on the ground that it was deficient, 
and hence, not a valid tender. Having awaited for a period of two months, 
i.e., the period of notice, the landlord initiated proceedings for eviction. 
The short question which arises for consideration is: whether the tenant 
can be said to have committed a wilful default so as to attract the applicability 
of Section 10(2)(i) of the Act? 
G 
The term 'rent' has not been defined in the Act and therefore, we shall 
have to go by the ordinary dictionary meaning of the term, 'rent'. As held H 
462 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) 3 S.C.R. 
A in Karani Properties ltd. v. Miss Augustine and Ors., AIR (1957) SC 309, 
the tenn 'rent' is comprehensive enough to include, all payments agreed by 
the tenant to be paid to his landlord for the use and occupation not only of 
the building and its appurtenances but also f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.