MIS. SHRIKRISHNA OIL MILL versus MIS. RADHAKRISHNAN RAMCHANDRA

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 98 · Decided: 09-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS. SHRIKRISHNA OIL MILL 
v. 
MIS. RADHAKRISHNAN RAMCHANDRA 
JANUARY 9, 2002 
B 
[R.P. SETHI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Rent and Eviction: 
Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954-
C Section l 5(2)(ii) 
Eviction Suit-On the ground of default in payment of rent-Rent for 
the period claimed already received by the landlord before filing of the suit-
Courts below ordered for eviction on the gound that he was defaulter since 
D did not pay the rent on due date-Held, eviction cannot be ordered since 
landlord had no cause of action on the date of filing of the petition as rent 
already paid 
Appellant-tenant took the suit premises on rent from respondent-
landlord on yearly tenancy. He continued even after expiry of lease period. 
E Respondent-landlord filed a civil suit for recovery of arrears of rent for the 
period between 1.11.1978 and 29.9.1981 which was paid by the appellant before 
the Court. Thereafter respondent filed an application for eviction of the 
appellant on the gound of default in payment of rent since 1.11.1978 till the 
date of filing of the application. The rent controller, the appellate authority 
F and the High Court ordered for his eviction. All the Courts found that the 
rent for the period, in question, was received by the landlord before filing of 
the present eviction petition but found the appellant to be defaulter as he did 
not pay rent on due date and also after filing of the eviction petition for which 
the landlord had to file civil suit. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that application for eviction 
was not maintainable since the rent for the period, in question, was paid by 
the appellant in the civil suit before the date of filling of the application for 
eviction. Respondent contended that appellant was a wilful defaulter since he 
never paid the rent on due date and, therefore, he had to file suit for recovery 
H ofrent. 
98 
-
... 
' 
SHRIKRISHNA OIL MILL v. RADHAKRISHNAN RAMCHANDRA [PHUKAN, J.] 
99 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD : I. In the present case, at the time of filing of the present eviction 
petition, landlord had no cause of action as the arrears of rent were paid and 
accepted by the landlord and, therefore, the petition became infructuous and 
liable to be rejected. For subsequent default also eviction cannot be ordered 
in view of the above legal position and in absence of any legal provision in the B 
Act. [101-H; 102-AI 
2. The contention that there was default in payment of rent of one month 
is unsustainable because the tenancy was an yearly one and, therefore, there 
was no question of default of rent for one month as rent for the entire year C 
was to be paid within one month from the end of the yearly tenancy and also 
because the plea was raised for the first time in the appeal. [102-B-CI 
Teegala Satyanarayana v. G.S. Bhagwan, [1994) Supp. 3 SCC 7415; 
Sundaram Pillai and Ors. v. V.R. Pattabiraman and Ors., [1985) 1 SCC 591 
and K.A. Ramesh and Ors., v. Susheela Bai and Ors., [1998) 3 SCC 58, relied D 
on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6359 of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.99 of the Bombay High Court 
in C.R. Application No. 556of1989. 
E 
Sunil Kumar Verma and S.M. Jadhav for the Appellant. 
S.V. Deshpande for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PHUKAN, J. This appeal by special leave is by the tenant. The suit 
premises were taken on rent by the appellant at a rent of Rs. I 500 year for 
F 
the purpose of running an oil mill. After the expiry of period of lease, the 
tenancy continued. The respondent-landlord filed an application on 25.11.1981 
under Section I 5(2)(ii) of Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control G 
Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') before the Controller for the eviction of the 
appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent since 1.11.1978 till the 
date of filing of the application. Prior to the filing of the present eviction 
application, the respondent filed a Civil Suit on 11.08.1981 for recovery of 
arrears of rent for the period between 1.11.1978 to 29.9.1981 amounting to Rs. 
4250 and on 7.10.1981 appellant appeared before the court and deposited the H 
100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] I S.C.R. 
A amount which was accepted by the respondent. Both the Rent Controller and 
the appellate authority held that the appellant was a defaulter and accordingly 
ordered for his eviction. The Revision Petition filed by the 

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