N.S.M. AHMED JAMALIA BEEVI versus D.N. SHAH

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 172 · Decided: 30-07-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
N.S.M. AHMED JAMALIA BEEVI 
v. 
D.N. SHAH 
JULY 30, 1997 
B 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
The Tamil Nadu· Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 
Section 10(2)(i), Sections 11(1) and (4) and S. 25-Tenant-Non-pay-
C ment of rent-Eviction Proceedings can be contested or appeal prefeTTed only 
on payment/deposit of a/Tears of Rent-Failure to do so-Order of disposses-
sion unless sufficient cause is shown to the contrary--Persistent def a ult 
withou(showing sufficient cause-Held, liable for eviction-Sympathetic con-
siderations for the default cannot be accepted-Equitable considerations have 
no place in the face of express provision of law. 
D 
Section 2(6)-''Landlord''-lncludes tenant who sub-lets. 
The appellant let out her premises with permission to sublet the 
same. Since September 1990, the respondent committed default in payment 
of rent. The appellant served a notice of demand on the respondent on 
E September 23, 1991. Eviction proceedings were initiated under Section 
10(2) (i) of the Act and an order of eviction was passed ex-pa11e on July, 31, 
1992 by the Rent Controller. On an application by the respondent, the 
eviction order was set aside. A suit for possession under Section 11 ( 4) 
moved by the appellant before the Rent Controller was dismissed. The 
F Appellate Authority directed the respondent to deposit the arrears within 
one month failing which the order of eviction would be passed. The 
respondent went in revision before the High Court which gave 6 weeks time 
to pay the arrears failing which the stay would automatically be vacated. 
The respondent defaulted. The appellant moved the Rent Controller and 
eviction order was passed. The two pleas taken by the respondent before 
G the High Court were : (1) that on account of his daughter's marriage he 
was unable to pay the rent and (2) since July 1992 sub-tenant had paid 
rent directly to the appellant. The High Court granted further two weeks 
time to pay the arrears and set aside the order under Section 11 ( 4) of Act, 
as well as the eviction proceedings. Hence this appeal by the appellant-
H landlady. 
172 
N.S.M.AHMEDJAMALIABEEVIv. D.N.SHAH[D.P. WADHWA,J .) 173 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court, A 
this Court 
HELD : 1. The pleas taken by the respo:Jdent did not constitute 
"sufficient cause" for his persistent default. That the tenant could not 
arrange finances on account of his daughter's marriage cannot be a 
ground to deny the landlady her due. In case the sub-tenants had themsel-
B 
ves defaulted in payment of rent to respondent/tenant, he could well have 
proceeded against them under the Rent Cantrol Act. Equitable considera-
tions have no place in the case like the present one and that too in the face 
of the express provision oflaw. [178-B-C] 
2. While the Rent Control Act protects the tenant against eviction 
and is a departure from the Transfer of Property Act, it is the bounden 
duty of the tenant to pay rent to the Landlord regularly and not to commit 
default. [178-C] 
c 
3. The High Court was certainly in error in granting time to the D 
tenant to deposit the rent. It did not exercise its jurisdiction properly as 
envisaged under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. [178-C-D] 
CIVIL APPELLANT JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5185 of 
1997. 
From the .Judgment and Order dated 9.7.96 of the Madras High 
Court in C.R.P. No. 3700 of 1994. 
M. Sundar and (R. Sudhinder) for Rajesh Kumar for the Appellant. 
· Raju Ramachandran and R.A. Perumal for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D.P. WADHWA, J. Leave granted. 
E 
F 
The appellant is landlady. She is aggrieved by the order dated July G 
9, 1996 of the Madras High Court granted yet further time to the respon-
dent tenant for depositing rent in spite of persistent default committed by 
him in violation of the provision of sub section (1) of Section 11 of the 
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short, 'the 
Act'). 
H 
174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant is the owner and landlady of property bearing No. 145 
Lingni Chetty Street, Madras. She let out the same to the respondent at a 
monthly rent of Rs. 4500 with permission to subl::t the same. The premises 
comprise of four independent shops. The appellant says the respondent is 
recovering enormous rent from these shops having sublet the same. It has 
B come on record in respect of one shop t

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