DAKAYA @ DAKAIAH versus ANJANI

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 291 · Decided: 12-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DAKA YA @ DAKAIAH 
A 
v. 
AN.JANI 
OCTOBER 12, 1995 
[G.N. RAY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, .TJ.] 
B 
AF Buildings (Lease, Relit and Eviction) Control Act, 1960: Section 
IO. 
Tenant-Eviction-Default in payment of rent-Notice Joi-Entire C 
amount under default tendered before institution of suit-Held cause of action 
for eviction vanished--Eviction order set aside. 
The appellant-tenant committed default in payment of rent. How-
ever, immediately after receipt of notice from the respondent-landlady, the 
tenant remitted the monthly rent of Rs. 375 which was accepted by the D 
landlady. Another Bank Draft for Rs. 1125 sent by the tenant was not 
encashed by the landlady and the same was deposited in the Court. 
Thereafter, on an application filed by the landlady under Section 10 of the 
A.P. Buildings ( Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the Rent 
Controller passed an eviction order holding that the tenant has committed E 
willful default in payment of rent. The eviction order was upheld by the 
first appellate court and the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended that unless the eviction 
order is set aside the tenant "ill suffer serious prejudice because he is also 
carrying on business in the tenanted premises and also willing to pay such 
F 
monthly rent as may appear just to the Court. 
Allowing the tenant's appeal, this Court 
HELD : l. As the tenant had already sent the Bank Draft covering 
the entire default, there was also no occasion for the Rent Controller to G 
direct deposit of arrears within the stipulated period. The Rent Controller, 
the first appellate court and the High Court have failed to appreciate the 
incidence of tendering the entire amount under detllult before the institu-
tion of the suit. As a result, the courts beltnv have erroneously proceeded 
on the footing that there had been a wilful default for which the landlady H 
291 
292 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A was entitled to a decree for eviction. (294-C-D] 
B 
c 
D 
2. The tenant-appellant is carrying on business in the disputed 
premises and the order of eviction cannrit but affect his interest seriously. 
Further whether wilful or not, the fact remains that the tenant defaulted 
in payment of rent for several months for which the landlady, stated to be 
poor and helpless widow has suffered considerable prejudice. Therefore, 
in consonance with equity and justice the order of eviction is set aside and 
the tenant-appellant is directed to pay to the respondent-landlady the rent 
for the premises in question with effect from October 1,1995@ rupees five 
hundred fifty per month. (294-G-H, 295-A) 
S. Su11daram Pillai Etc. v. V.R. Pattabirama11, (1985) 2 SCR 643 =AIR 
(1985) SC 582, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.9461 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.2.95 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in C.R.P. No. 2824 of 1994. 
Dhruv Mehta, S.K. Mehta and Aman Vachher for the Appellant. 
E 
T.N. Rao, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar and V. Narender for the Respon-
F 
dent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against 
the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated February 13,1995 
passed in Civil Revision Petition No.2824 of 1994. By the said impugned 
judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed the revision 
G application made against the order dated July 4, 1994 of the Additional 
Chief .Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. No.203 of 1992 
affirming the order dated April 29,1992 passed by the Prl. Rent Controller. 
Secunderabad in R.C. No. 316 of 1988. 
The respondent-landlady made an application under Section 10 of 
H the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 
DAKAYA v. ANJANI 
293 
(hereinafter referred to as the A.P. Rent Act) for eviction of the tenant A 
appellant on the ground of wilful default of payment of rent for the period 
September, 1988 to November, 1988 amounting to Rs.1125. There is no 
dispute in this case that the tenant failed to make the payment within the 
stipulated period for the said months. It however, appears to us that the 
landlady gave a notice to the tenant on December 6,1988 claiming payment B 
of rent for the said months of September, 1988 to November, 1988. The 
landlady however, demanded surrender of the tenancy of the tenant within 
one week from the date of receipt of the notice dated December 6, 1988. 
The t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.