CHORDIA AUTOMOBILES versus S. MOOSA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 13 · Decided: 29-02-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

----
-
CHORDIA AUTOMOBILES 
v. 
S. MOOSA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 29, 2000 
[A.P. MISRA AND N. SANTOSH HEDGE, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: Explanation 
I to proviso to Section 10(2)(i). 
Payment of rent-Default in-Notice-Period of-Landlord issued no-
A 
B 
c 
tice demanding payment of enhanced rent-However, before expiry of 60 days . 
from the date of notice landlord filed suit for eviction on ground of default in 
payment of rent-Rent Controller fixed interim rate of rent-Tenant deposited 
arrears of rent promptly and continued to pay old rent regularly-However, 
D 
Rent Controller decreed the suit-Appellate Court dismissed appeal-High 
Court dismissed revision-Correctness of-Held : Explanation I to proviso to 
Section 10(2)(i) gives a benefit to the tenant so that default matures into a 
wilful default only when it continues for a period of two months from the date 
of notice-Since the eviction suit was filed before default matured into wilful 
de.fault, the High Court erred in dismissing the revision-Even if there is 
default it is not wilful default. 
Payment of rent-Wilful de.fault in-Meaning of-Held : Means an act 
consciously or deliberately done with open defiance and intention not to pay the 
rent. 
Words and Phrases : 
"Default" and "wilful de.fault"-Meaning of-In the context of Explana-
tion I to proviso to S.10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent 
Control) Act, 1960. 
The appellant was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises belong-
ing to the respondent-landlord. The rent was enhanced several times and 
the last enhancement was subject to provision of certain additional facili-
E 
F 
G 
ties in the suit premises by the respondent to which he orally agreed. 
However, the respondent failed to provide these additional facilities. The 
H 1 
13 
14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
appellant then filed a suit against the respondent contending that he was 
not entitled to pay the enhanced rent. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The respondent-landlord instead of complying with the oral agree-
ment issued a notice to the appellant-tenant demanding the· said enhanced 
rent. However, the respondent filed an eviction Petition before the expiry 
of 60 days from the date of notice against the appellant under Section 
10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,, 1960 
on the ground of default in payment of rent. The appellant contested the 
claim on the ground that the enhanced rent was payable only after the 
additional facilities were provided. Regarding ~efault in payment of previ-
ous rate of rent the appellant claimed tha.t the agent of the respondent did 
not come to collect it as was the practice for a longtime. 
Since there was a dispute in respect of the previous rate of rent, the 
Rent Controller passed an order under Section 11 of the Act directing the 
appellant to deposit a certain sum for the period in question, which the 
appellant duly deposited. Thereafter, the appellant initially deposited the 
rent in the court and subsequently paid it directly to the respondent who 
accepted the same. However, the Rent Controller decreed the suit. The 
Appellant Authority confirmed the said order and the High Court dis-
missed the Revision. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the Rent Controller 
wrongly held the appellant to be a wilful defaulter; that Explanation I to 
proviso to Section 10(2)(i) of the Act was ~isconstrued; that filing of the 
eviction petition was premature since it was filed ~efore expiry of 60 days 
from the date of notice as provided in the said Explanation; that the 
appellant had been paying the rent regularly and the default was commit-
ted because the respondent's agent did not come to collect the rent; and 
that if at all there was default, it was not wilful default. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that fixation of rent 
under Section 11 and payment thereafter was no defence for default. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. Explanation I to proviso to Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil 
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 has given a benefit to 
a tenant viz., if there is default in payment of rent and a notice is sent by 
the landlord of such default, then the default would mature into a wilful 
CHORDIA AUTOMOBILES v. S. MOOSI;\ 
15 
default only if the default continues; in other words the defaulted amount 
is not paid within a peri

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