RAJA MUTHUKONE (D) BY LRS. versus T. GOPALASAMI AND ANR.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 708 · Decided: 21-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
RAJA MUTHUKONE (D) BY LRS. 
v. 
T. GOPALASAMI AND ANR. 
MARCH 21, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Rent and Eviction. 
Tam# Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: 
S. 10(2)(i); Explanation-Tenant in arrears of rent-Notice claiming 
arrears served by landlord-Tenant replying that rent deposited in court in 
another proceeding-Landlord filing suit for eviction before expiry of two 
months' period and later withdrawing the rent deposited by tenant-High 
D Court decreeing the suit-Held, once landlord gave notice to tenant claiming 
rent in arrears, he should have waited for a period of two months from date 
of service of notice and it is only on non-payment or non-tender of rent within 
the period of two months that landlord could have initiated eviction proceedings 
and then it would have been for the tenant to satisfy the Rent Controller that 
inspite of non-payment of rent he was not a defaulter for reasons-Besides, 
E in the instant case, before initiation of proceedings, tenant had brought to 
~otice of landlord the fact that rent had been deposited in court-Landlord 
had also withdrawn the rent so deposited before expiry of said two months-
Therefore, tenant cannot be held to be a defaulter-Judgment of High Court 
set aside-Eviction proceedings dismissed. 
F 
S. Sundaram Pillai and Ors. v. V.R Pattabiraman and Ors., (1985] 1 SCC 
591, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6929 of 
2000. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.1.2000 of the Chennai High 
Court in C.R.P. No. 1881 of 1996. 
Balaji Srinivasan, M.B. Rama Subba Raju and V. Sudeer for S. 
Srinivasan for the Appellants. 
H 
708 
·-
~ 
./ 
r 
~ 
.. 
RAJA MUTHUKONE v. T. GOPALASAMI 
709 
K.V. Vijay Kumar for the Respondents. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A Suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground available under 
Clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings 
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', B 
for short) has been ordered to be decreed by the High Court. Feeling 
aggrieved thereby the tenant has filed this appeal by special leave. 
For our purpose it would suffice to set out only a few relevant facts 
which, at this stage, are not in controversy. The rent for the months of 
June, 1983 to November, 1984 was not paid by the tenant to the landlord. c 
On 7112/1984 the landlord served a notice on the tenant claiming the rent 
in arrears as contemplated by Explanation to sub-Section (2) of Section 
10. The notice was served. The tenant replied to it. It appears that there 
were multiple legal proceedings initiated before different fora, between 
the landlord and the tenant which had all stood concluded. Irl two or three D 
of such proceedings, the tenant had deposited the amount of rent. The 
dates of deposit are not know but the fact remains that the rent which was 
claimed as in arrears, was actually deposited. The factum of rent having 
been deposited in such proceedings was stated by the tenant in his reply 
to the notice. However, without waiting for the period of two months, the 
landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on 2/l/l 985 before the E 
Rent Controller. Subsequent to the filing of these proceedings for eviction, 
on 18/ l/ 1985 the landlord moved a petition, called the cheque memo, 
withdrawing the rent deposited by the tenant in different proceedings and 
the amount was also withdrawn. 
The short question which arises for consideration is whether in such F 
facts and circumstances the tenant can be said to have committed a wilful 
default in paying or tendering the rent to the landlord. 
According to the learned counsel for the landlord, the tenant was 
bound to pay or tender rent to the landlord, month by month, within G 
fifteen days of the expirty of each tenancy month and if the tenant had . 
deposited the rent in certain proceedings, which had already stood concluded, 
then he did so af his own peril and he cannot take advantage of such 
deposits for purging the default. The submission of the learned counsel 
for the tenant is that if the landlord choses to serve a notice claiming the 
rent in terms of the Explanation abovesaid, then he must wait for a period H 
710 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A of two months for payment or tender of rent by the tenant and it is only 
'--
B 
in the event of latter's failure to pay the rent in the notice period that he 
may be considered to b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.