J. JERMONS versus ALIAMMAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 467 · Decided: 16-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

J. JERMONS 
A 
v. 
ALIAMMAL AND ORS. 
AUGUST 16, 1999 
[V.N. KHARE AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction. 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 
c 
S.10(2)(1)-Arrears of rent-'Wilful default'-Determination of-Tax 
Recovery Officer-Prohibitory order under S.222 (!)(a) rlw R.26(/)(a) of 
Second Schedule to Income Tax Act-Stoppage of payment of rent by tenant-
Subsequent notice under S.226(3) of Income Tax Act-Payment of rent for 
entire period to Tax Recovery Officer-Eviction petition on the ground of 
'wilful default' in payment of rent-Validity of-Held, non-payment of rent D 
due to prohibitory order does not amount to 'wilful default' in payment of 
rent-Payment of rent by tenant to Tax Recovery Officer would fully discharge 
him from his obligation to pay rent to the landlords-Eviction not 
sustainable-Income Tax Act, 1961-S.222 (/)(a) r/w R. 26(l)(a) of Second 
Schedule and S.226 (3). 
E 
S.10(3)(a) and (b)-Eviction petition-Filed on the ground of bona 
fide requirements under S. lO(J)(a)-Dismissed by Rent Controller-On appeal. 
Appellate Authority rejecting the plea qf bona fide requirements-Pending 
proceedings, landlords securing two non-residential buildings-Revision-
Application for raising additional grounds under S. JO(J}(c)-High Court F 
allowing the application and passing eviction order under S. I O(J)(c) without 
recording findings regarding comparative hardship to parties-Validity of-
Held, requirements for eviction under clause (c) are different from those 
under clause (a)-lt is incumbent upon the authority considering application 
for eviction under clause (c) to record finding under proviso to S.10(3)(c)- G 
Order of High Court unsustainable. 
Practice and Procedure. 
Revision-Additional grounds-Raising of-Amendment of pleadings-
Necessity of -Difference between raising a new plea and raising additional 
467 
468 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A grounds on the basis of material already on record-Held, new plea cannot 
be raised without amending the pleadings and after giving reasonable 
opportunity to parties to file further pleadings and adduce necessary 
evidence-However, additional grounds raised on the basis of pleadings and 
material already on record can be allowed without amendment of pleadings. 
B 
Eviction petition-Application for amendment-Allowed by Appellate 
c 
D 
Authority or the Revisional Authority-Held, the appropriate course will be 
to remand the matter to the Rent Controller-However, in the instant case, 
since the application was only to raise additional grounds and not amendment 
of pleadings, it is not a fit case to remand the matter to the Rent Controller. 
Words &Phrases. 
'Wilful default '-Meaning of in the context of proviso to S. I 0(2)(i) of 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 
'Debt '-Meaning and scope of 
Appellant-tenant took the premises in question on a monthly rent from 
predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. There was certain default in 
payment of tax by predecessor-in-interest of respondent-landlord. Consequently, 
Tax Recovery officer issued a prohibitory order under S.222(1)(a) r/w Rule 
E 26(1)(a) of Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act and appellant-tenant 
stopped payment of rent. However, pursuant to a subsequent notice under 
S.226(3) of the Income Tax Act, appellant tenant paid the rent for the entire 
period to the Tax Recovery Officer. Respondent-landlord's eviction petition 
on the ground of 'wilful default' in payment of rent and for bona fide 
requirement was dismissed by Rent Controller. On appeal, the Appellate 
F Authority while rejecting the ground of bona fide requirement, passed eviction 
order on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. Aggrieved, both the 
parties filed revision petition before High Court. During the pendency of 
eviction proceedings, respondent-landlords secured possession of two non-
residential buildings. Consequently, landlords filed an application for raising 
G additional grounds for eviction under S.10(3)(c) of the Act. High Court 
allowed the said application and passed eviction order under S.10(3)(c) of the 
Act. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of appellant-tenant it was contended that by virtue of the 
prohibitory order issued by the Income Tax Department, the appellant was 
H prevented from paying the rent to the landlord and, therefore, non-payment 
J. JERMONS v. ALIAMMAL 
469 
of rent to the landlord after th

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