C. CHANDRAMOHAN versus SENGOTTAIYAN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 16 · Decided: 04-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
C. CHANDRAMOHAN 
v. 
SENGOTTAIYAN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
JANL'AR y 4, 2cca 
B 
[V.N. KHARE AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.) 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 Section 
C 10(2)(iJ--Evictiort-Wilful Default in payment uf rent· -Application for per-
mission to deposit rent of premises by tenant dismissed by Court-Landlord 
withdrew rent deposited by the tenant before filing the eviction petition- -Nu 
default in payment uf rent subsists on the dace uf filing uf petition- -Held, 
landlord not entitled to claim eviction of tenant. 
D 
Section 10(2}--Eviction--Failure to tender cu"ect rent-Held, such 
failure cannot be tenned as wilful default in paymrnt uf rent. 
Section 10(2)(vii,-Eviction- -Denial of title uf landlord-Landlord 
derived title of the premises under release deed executed by hi.1· father-Tenant 
E not intimated about the release deed-After demi.1e uf landlord's father tenant 
started payment of rent to landlord- Did not deny relationship of landlord 
and tenant-Merely asseTted that landlord is a co-owner for lack uf knowledge 
of release deed-Held, does not amount to denial of title of landlord to ~·eek 
eviction unless tenant renounces his relationship as tenant. 
F 
Equity-Principles of-Persons cannot approbate and reprobate-Legis-
lative recognitiort-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 116-Transfer of Propeny 
Act, 1882-Section lll(g). 
The appellant derived title to the premises under the release deed 
G executed by his father but did not intimate about the ownership acquired 
under the release deed to the respondents. The appellant claiming a higher 
rent for the premises sent a notice to respondents to vacate the premises 
as it was required for demolition and rec!lnstruction. Meanwhile the 
respondents moved an application for permission to deposit rent in the 
court but the same was dismissed. The applicant filed eviction petitions 
H against the respondents on the grounds of wilful default in payment of 
16 
_/ 
-. 
C. CHANDRAMOHAN v_ SENUUTTAIYAN-
17 
rent, for demolition and reconstruction of the premises and denial of title A 
of the landlord. The respondents contended that the quantum of rent 
claimed by the appellant was not correct and as the appellant was the 
co·owner he could not seek eviction of the premises. The respondents 
submitted that they were not aware of the execution of the release deed in 
favour of the appellant and were regularly paying rent to the appellant. The 
Rent Controller allowed the petitions on the basis of the evidence led before 
B 
it. Aggrieved by the order the respondents filed appeals before appellate 
authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeals. The respondents 
filed revision petitions before the High Court. The High Court allowing the 
revision petitions set-aside the order of eviction. Hence these appeals. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
Held : 1.1. A combined reading of Section 10(2)(i), the proviso and 
the explanation as found in the T.N. Rent Control Act manifests that it is 
c 
only when the Rent Controller is satisfied that a tenant's default to pay or 
tender the rent is wilful, he can order eviction of the tenant. The question D 
of wilful default to pay or tender the rent to a landlord by a tenant is a 
mixed question of law and fact. [22-A] 
1.2. The appellant had withdrdwn the rent deposited by the respon· 
dents before the filing of the eviction petition. Having accepted the rent E 
deposited, the appellant cannot legitimately contend that the respondents 
committed default in payment of rent of that period. That being the 
position on the date the appellant filed eviction petitions against the 
respondents, cause of action on the ground of wilful default in payment of 
rent was not subsisting to claim their eviction from the premises. [22·D·E] 
Dakaya (qi Dakaiah v. Anjani, [1995) 6 SCC 500, referred to. 
2.1. The ground for seeking eviction of the respondents was that the 
respondents failed to tender correct rent that was termed as wilful default 
F 
in payment of rent. Such failure to tender correct rent cannot be wilful G 
default in payment of rent under Section 10(2) of the Act. [20-H; 21·A] 
3.1. To seek eviction on the ground of denial of the title of the 
landlord there should be denial of title of the landlord or claim of a right 
of permanent tenancy by the tenant and such denial or claim should not 
be bonajide. [23-F] 
H 
18 
SUPREME COURT Rf-PORTS 
[2000J 1 S.C.R

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.