N.D. THANDANI (DEAD) BY LRS. versus ARNAVAZ RUSTOM PRINTER AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 141 · Decided: 24-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
N.D. THANDANI (DEAD) BY LRS. 
A 
v. 
ARNA VAZ RUSTOM PRINTER AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 24, 2003 
(R.C. LAHOTI AND.ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
B 
A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960; Section 
10(2)(i)-A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961; 
Rule 5-Tenant defaulting in payment of rent every month and depositing 
the arrears in lumpsum with Rent Controller contrary to earlier order by C 
Supreme Court-Failure of the tenant to give the particulars of rent . 
deposds to landlord under the Rules-Eviction on wilful default in payment 
of rent-Justification of-Held, on facts, is justified since there is wilful 
default in payment of rent every month by tenant. 
This Court, in an earlier round of litigation, directed appellant- D 
tenants to deposit the arrears of rent within two months and to deposit 
future rents by IOth of every month with the Rent Controller. On 
default of the direction, respondent-landlords issued a legal notice to 
the appellants to furnish details of rent of deposited with the Rent 
Controller. The appellants replied to the notice stating that the arrears E 
of rent of Rs. 6,300 was deposited with the Rent Controller, but without 
giving the details of deposits. The respondents moved an application 
before the Rent Controller for withdrawing the amount deposited by 
the appellants. The Rent Controller replied that an amount of only 
Rs. 216.25 was lying in deposit. The respondents filed a suit for eviction F 
of the appellants before the Rent Controller under section 10(2)(i) of 
A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 on the 
ground of wilful default in payment of rent. During the _eviction 
proceedings, the appellants made available .the challans showing deposit 
of Rs. 6300 with the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller allowed the G 
suit of the respondents and it was upheld by High Court in revision. 
In appeal, the appellant-tenants contended that a mere default 
does not invite liability for eviction since the default was not a 'wilful 
default'; and that the cause of action for seeking eviction based on 
preceding default does not survive since the arrears of rent have been H 
141 
142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
't 
deposited and the respondents accepting the same. 
Dismissing the appeal with certain directions, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. A perusal of Rule 5 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent 
B 
and Eviction) Control Rules, 1962 shows that the rule making authority 
has taken care to meticulously frame the rule and lay down a detailed 
procedure so as not to leave room for any controversy to arise between 
the landlord and the tenant as to payment of rent. The object of 
framing such rule is that merely because of litigation or a strained 
relationship existing between the landlord and the tenant, the landlord 
c may not be harassed for realising the rent and he must be able to collect 
and receive the rent reg~larly. (144-H, 145-A; 146-F-G) 
1.2. Not only the law itself require the appellant-tenants to pay 
or tender, the rent month by month, the order of this Court mandated 
D the appellants to clear all the arrears of rent within two months and 
thereafter to deposit the rent month by month and strictly observe 
compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court. The appellant did 
not even comply with the provisions of Rule 5 of the A.P. Buildings 
Control Rules. Huge amount of arrears accumulated and were cleared 
E 
in one go. Even other deposits were not regularly made. The respi:>n«!ents 
did not keep the appellants informed of the deposits either directly or 
by complying with the provision of the Rule. The obligation of the 
tenant to pay or tender the rent cannot be said to have been discharged 
unless and until the landlords were posted with the information along 
with particulars enabling them to withdraw the amount. The legal 
F notices served by the respondents were not respcmded to in the desir~d 
manner so as to put an end to their grievance. A claim for eviction 
founded on the simple ground of default in payment remained pending 
for years, obviously because of the reluctance and the procrastinating 
tactics of the appellant. This is a clear case of'wilful default'. The High 
G Court has rightly held the appellant to be a chronic wilful defaulter. 
The decree for eviction is fully justified. [147-H; 148-A-D) 
Mangilal v. Suganchand Rathi, [1964] 5 SCR 239; S. Sundaram 
Pillai & Ors. v. V.R. Pattabiraman & Ors.

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