J.J. LAL PVT. LTD. AND ORS. versus M.R. MURALI AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 919 · Decided: 08-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

J.J. LAL PVT. LTD. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
M.R. MURALI AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 8, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 Section 
/0(2)(vii). 
C 
Eviction-Grounds-Default in payment of rent-Non-payment of rent by 
the tenant is not enough-It must be shown that default in payment of rent is 
wilful, intentional, calculated and conscious with full knowledge of legal 
consequences flowing therefrom-Landlord not properly serving notice of D 
demand of rent or uncertainty as to the title of the property due lo rival 
claim-In such cases non-payment of rent for certain period does not amount 
lo wilful default-Ground of eviction not available lo the landlord. 
Denial of /i11/e-Plea of denial of title of landlord 'not bonajide '-
Operates as ground for eviction. 
Denial of title-Adjudication of-Rent Controller could decide for the 
limited pwpose of finding out as to whether a ground of eviction is made 
out-But question of title should be left open to be determined by Civil Court 
as also the Eviction Petition so as lo avoid multiplicity of litigation- -Legislative 
intention. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section I 16-Rule of Estoppel-Tenant is estopped 
from denying the title of the landlord during the continuance of tenancy. 
E 
F 
Landlord-respondents initiated eviction proceedings against the 
appellant-tenants from the suit premises, before the Rent Controller on the G 
ground of default in making payment of rent by the tenants for certain period. 
In their written statement tenants submitted that there was a dispute as to 
the rate of rent and quantum of arrears of rent that they were prepared to 
pay the rent nt the existing rate. Appellant-tenants filed an additional counter 
affidavit wherein it was submitted that Municipal Corporation of Madras had 
919 
H 
920 
SUPREME COURT REP0'RTS 
[2002] I S.C.R. 
A earlier granted a long term lease in respect of suit premises in favour of one 
'X' who expired and subsequently in favour of landlords; that since the term 
of the lease had expired, Corporation initiated steps to create a lellse directly 
in favour of the actual occupants, and so the suit for recovery of possession 
from tenants was not maintainable. Rent Controller dismissed the suits 
holding that tenants were not defaulters. Landlords preferred appeals. 
B Appellate Authority framed two issues for decision, viz., (i) wilful default, if 
any, committed by the tenants and (ii) if tenants were liable to be evicted for 
their denial of landlord's right over the property being not bonafide and 
concluded that there was no wilful default on the part of the tenllnts in 
payment of rent and that denial of title of the landlords was bonafide. On these 
C findings the appeals were dismissed. Landlords preferred revision petition, 
and High Court reversed the decision of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved, 
tenants filed the present appeals. 
D 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. To claim eviction under Section 10(2Xvii) of the Tamil N2du 
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, it is for the landlord to allege 
that denial of title or claim was not bonafide. Once the landlord has 2dduced 
evidence sustaining the ingredients of grounds for eviction, the onus would 
shift to the tenant to show that either there was no denial or claim attracting 
E applicability of Clause (vii) or the same was bonafide. But in the instant case, 
the eviction petition does not contain any averment making out a case of denial 
of landlord's title by the tenants. (928-F-G-H) 
F 
Majati Subbarao v. P. V.K. Krishna Rao (Deceased) by Lrs., [1989) 4 SCC 
732 and Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal, (2002) I SCR 359, referred to. 
2. A plea taken by the defendant in written statement can itself be made 
a ground for allowing relief to the plaintiff subject to well known limitations; 
(i) The plea taken in the written statement should by itself be enough as 
furnishing a ground for relief to the plaintiff. (ii) The plea taken by the 
G defendant does not stand in need of any further pleadings being joined by 
the party; (iii) an issue is framed and put to trial unless the facts of the case 
show that the parties actually went to trial fully alive to the real issue between . 
them and had opportunity of adducing evidence. [932-F-GJ 
Nagubai Amma/ and Ors. v. B. Shama Rao and Ors., [1956) SCR 451, 
H relied on. 
J.J. LAL PVT. LTD. v. M.R. MURALI 
921 
Firm Sriniwas Ram 

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