LexMARAGATHAMMAL versus KAMALAMMAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
MARAGA THAM MAL
v.
KAMALAMMAL
SEPTEMBER 11, 2006
[ASHOK BHAN AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]
Rent and Eviction: Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act, 1960--Sections 10 and I /-Default in payment of rent-Rent Controller
C directed tenant u/s.11 to deposit rent in Court, failing compliance of which,
his defence would be struck off-Deposit not made within stipulated time-
Defence struck off and eviction ordered-{;ha!lenge to-Held: Eviction n~zhtly
ordered as tenant had been deliberately avoiding payment of rent as and
when it fell due.
D
The appellant-landlord filed eviction petition against the respondent-
tenant. on the ground of default in payment of rent fro~ March 1990 to 1997.
Appellant filed an application under Section 1.1 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 in which an order dated 9.11.1995 was
passed directing the tenant to deposit the entire admitted arrears of rent in
Court on or before 22.11.1995, failing compliance of which her defence would
E be struck off. The responden~ did not deposit the arrears of rent on the due
date and instead lodged a schedule on 21.l l.1995. In this lodgment schedule,
the respondents stated that she wanted to deposit the rent from the month of
June, 1992 to October 1995. This lodgment schedule came to be considered
and the issue of challan was ordered on 29.11.1995.
F
The Rent Controller passed order on 1.12.1995 that the respondent
failed to deposit the admitted arrears inspite of ample opportunities extended
to her and, therefore, her defence stood struck off. On 22.3.1996, Rent
Controller passed eviction order. On appeal, the appellate authority held that
the respondent was not showing due diligence to discharge a liability in the
G payment of rents. Respondent preferred revision petitions. High Court held
that the tenant should be given an opportunity to contest the main eviction
petition on merits. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
H
898
·'
)-
MARAGATHAMMAL 1·. KAMALAMMAL [MARKANDEY KA TJU,J .]
899
HELD: There is no reason why the respondent lodged the schedule as A
late as on 21.11.1995, i.e. just the previous day prior to 22.11.1995 by which
date ~he was to deposit the entire admitted arrears in court under Section 11
of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The respondent
could have lodged this schedule on the very next day after the order dated
9.11.1995 i.e. on 10.11.1995 or within a day or two thereafter. It is admitted B
that the respondent-tenant has been deliberately avoiding the payment of the
rent as and when it fell due. Thus, the orders of the Rent Controller dated
9.11.1995 and 22.3.1996 are upheld. The impugned judgment of the High
Court is set aside and the respondent-tenant is granted two months time to
vacate the premises in question, failing which she will be evicted by Police
force. (903-D-F)
C
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4053 of2006.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3 .2004 of the High Court of
Madras in CRP No. 1981-82/2000.
Ranjit Kumar and V. Mohana for the Appellant.
T. Raja for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. Leave granted.
This appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 30.2.2004 passed
by the Madras High Court in CRP Nos. 1981 and 1982 of 2000.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The impugned judgment of the Madras High Court wa5 delivered in two
revisions arising out of eviction order by the Rent Controller and an application
filed under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 9.11.1995 and the
consequential order dated 22.3.1996.
The appellant herein filed R.C.O.P. No.162 of 1992 against the respondent
for eviction on the grounds of willful default, demolition and reconstruction
and also subletting. The respondents premises is a non-residential one and
the monthly rent is stated to be Rs. 650/-. According to the appellant, the
respondent failed to pay the rent from March 1990 to 1997 apart from having
D
E
F
900
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. ; S.C.R.
A sublet the premises. It was also claimed that the building required demolition
and reconstruction. According to the respondent, the rents were paid regularly
till June 1992 and the first appellant refused to receive the rents from the
month of July Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.