LexKRANTI SWAROOP MACHINE TOOLS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. versus SMT. KANTA BAI ASAWA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
+ - KRANTI SWAROOP MACHINE TOOLS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. A v. SMT. KANTA BAI ASAWA AND ORS. JANUARY 27, 1994 [S. MOHAN AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] B Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960: Section 7(2)(a}-Landlor~Tenant-Rent dee~Advance deposit by tenant for adjustment of rent, light bills and damages due at the tennination of tenancy-Default in payment of rent by tenant-Eviction order-Legality C of-Held there was obligation on the landlord to adjust rent without specific request from tenant. The respondents-landladies filed eviction petitions against the ap- pellants-tenants alleging that they had committed wilful default in pay- ment of Rent as well as municipal taxes in respect of the demised premises. D The Trial Court allowed the petitions and passed the eviction order against the appellant. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the Trial Court's order. On revision, the High Court held that the tenants had not com- : mitted default in payment of rents but had committed default in respect 1 of municipal taxes which amounted to wilful default in payment of rent E and accordingly ordered tenants eviction. The tenants challenged the judgment of the High Court in this Court contending that (a) merely because a small sum by way of municipal taxes has not been paid, it does not mean that tenant was liable to be evicted and (b) pursuant to clause (3) of the rent agreement they had deposited F Rs. 10,000, to be adjusted at the termination of tenancy, towards rent, light bills and damages due, with the landladies and. it was obligatory on their part to adjust the dues out of the advance amount without any specific request from the tenant. G Allowing the appeals and setting aside the judgment of the High Court, this Court HELD: 1. Having regard to the fact that the municipal taxes per month are Rs. 18 for each premises, the tenant could not be evicted when contrary to Section 7(2)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent H 377 378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 1 S.C.R. ~ A & Eviction) Control Act, 1960, the landlady has a deposit. This ought to have been adjusted from that deposit even without a specific request by the tenent in this behalf. [385-G-H] + 2. Though, clause 3 of the Rent deed did not permit adjustment, yet there is an obligation to adjust from out of it, otherwise the very purpose B of keeping a deposit is rendered nugatory. It is not necessary on the part of the tenant to make a specific request in this behalf. [382-C] Modem Hotel, Gudur represented by M.N. Narayanan v. K. Radhak- rishnaiah & Ors., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 725; Mohd. Salimuddin v. Misri Lal & Anr., C [1986] 1 S.C.R. 622 and M/s. Sarwan Kumar Onkar Nath v. Subhas Kumar + Agarwal, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 414, relied on. D E F Bhoja alias Bhoja Ram Gupta v. Rameshwar Agarwala and others, [1993] 2 S.C.C. 443 and Guiab Chand Prasad v. Budhwanti, A.I.R. 1985 Pat. 327 referred to. Budhwanti v. Guiab Chand Prasad, [1987] 2 S.C.C. 1531, explained and distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 5252- 5255 of 1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.6.1993 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 2658, 2941, 3122 and 3129 of 1990. A. Subba Rao and A.D.N. Rao for the Appellants. S.K. Mehta, Druv Mehta and Bal Chand for the Respondents. The J~dgment of the Court was delivered by MOHAN, J. 1. All these appeals can be dealt with under a common judgment since they they arise out of one and the same order in all the G Courts. The 1st respondent landlady, Smt. Kanta Bai Asawa and her mother Smt. Godavari Bai Rathi are the owners of mulgies bearing Municipal Nos. 3.2.840/6 and 3.2.840/7, situated at Veer Sawarkar Road, Kacheguda, Hyderabad. These two mulgies were let out to appellants tenants under separate lease-deeds marked as Pl and P2 respectively in I H the trial court executed on 23.9.1978. Ex. Pl is in respect of mulgi bearing SWAROOP MACHINE TOOLS LTD. v. KANTA BAI [MOHAN, J.] 379 No .. 3.2.840/6 and Ex. P2 is in respect of mulgi bearing No. 3.2.840/7. A Alleging that the tenants had committed wilful default in payment of rent as well as the taxes due to the Municipal Corporation in respect of the demise premises, the landladies filed four eviction petitions bearing R.C. Nos. 291/84, 292/84, 1972/86 and 1973/86 on the file of the First Additional Rent Controller at Hyderabad. The tenants contended that they did not B commit wilful
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.