RAKAPALLI RAJA RAMA GOPALA RAO versus NARAGANI GOVINDA SEHARARAO & ANR.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 115 · Decided: 12-09-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

\ 
• 
RAKAPALLI RAJA RAMA GOPALA RAO 
A 
v. 
NARAGANI GOVINDA SEHARARAO & ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 12, 1989 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] 
B 
A .P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960: Sec-
tion 10(2)-Tenant-Eviction-On ground of 'wilful default'-To be 
shown default was intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious with 
full knowledge, of its consequences. 
Non-payment of rent by tenant under bona fide belief that he was 
entitled to purchase property under a prior oral agreement pursuant to 
which he paid earnest money-Whether 'wilful'. 
Words and Pharases: 'Wilful'-Me~ning of. 
The respondents purchased the demised premises by a registered 
sale-deed dated 7th December, 1977 for Rs. 70,000. The appellant was 
in actual possession of a part of the premises as a tenant of the vendors 
at the date of purchase. After the purchase the respondents served the 
appellant with a notice dated 13th December, 1977 calling upon him to 
c 
D 
pay the rent due, and deliver va~cant possession of the demised pre-
E 
mises. The appellant replied to the notice ~n 29th December, 1977 
alleging that the vendors had orally agreed on 14th October, 1977 to sell 
him the property for Rs. 70,000, and had received Rs.5,000 as earnest 
money, and that he was under no obligation to pay the rent and vacate 
the premises, since he was ready and willing to purchase the property. 
The respondents sent a reply denying the existence of any such oral 
F 
agreement. 
A suit for eviction, was thereafter filed by the respondents claim-
ing rent from December 1977 to May 1978 from the appellant, and 
since the same was not paid, the appellant it was contended had 
rendered himself liable to eviction on the ground of wilfu.I default. 
G 
The courts below held that the appellant failed to pay the rent, 
and concluded that he was a wilful defaulter and passed a decree for 
ejectment against him . 
In the appeal to this Court, on the question: whether it can be said 
H 
115 
A 
B 
116 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
that the tenant's default to pay or tender rent from December 1977 to 
May 1978 was not wilful to avail of the benefit of the proviso to clause (i) 
of ,the sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Building 
(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The Court, allowing 
the appeal. 
HELD: I. An act is said to be wilful if it is intentional, conscious 
and deliberate. [119A] 
S. Sundaram Pillai etc. v. V.R. Pattabiraman etc., [1985] 2 SCR 
643, refered to. 
C 
2. In order to secure eviction for non-payment of rent, it must be 
shown that the default was intentional deliberate, calculated and con-
scious with full knowledge of its consequences. [119G] 
3. In cases where the tenant has defaulted to pay or tender the 
D rent, he is entitled to an opportunity to pay or tender the same if his 
default is not wilful. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 10 is 
couched in negative form to reduce the rigour of the substantive provi-
sion in Section 10(2) of the Act. [118H; ll9A] 
4. The appellant-tenant in the instant case, did not pay or tender 
E 
the rent from December 1977 to May 1978, not because he had no desire 
to pay the rent to the respondents but because he bona fide believed that 
he was entitled to purchase the property under the oral agreement of 
October 14, 1977. He had also paid Rs.5,000 by way of earnest under 
the said oral agreement. He, therefore, bona fide believed that he was 
entitled to purchase the property under the said oral agreement and 
F 
since he had already paid Rs.5,000 by way of earnest thereunder he 
genuinely believed he was under no obligation to pay the rent to the 
respondents. [119E-F] 
-
5. This is not a case of a tenant who has failed to pay the rent 
without any rhyme or reason. He was not averse to paying the rent bu( 
O he genuinely believed that he was nuder no obligation to do so as he had 
a prior right to purchase the property. [ll9H; 120A] 
6. This is a case where the Controller should have invoked the 
proviso to sub-section (2) of Section IO of the Act and called upon the 
appellant to pay the arrears from December 1977 to May 1978 within a 
H ~rt_~in time. Failure to do so has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The 
1
1
J'
•
/ ' 
RAKAPALLI v. N.G. SEHARARAO (AHMADI, J.] 
117 
ejectment decree cannot therefore, be allowed to stand and is accord· 
ingly set aside. The·matter will go back to the Controller who will give 
the benefit of the 

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