LexS. SUNDARAM PILLAI, ETC. versus V.R. PATTABIRAMAN ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. S. SUNDARAM PILLAI, ETC. v. V.R. PATTABIRAMAN ETC. January 24, 1985 [S. MuRTAZA FAZAL Au, A. VARADARAJAN AND SABYASACHI MuKHARJI, JJ.J 643 Re1il Control-Tamil Nadu Buildif!CS (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, sec. 10(2J(i)-Proviso anJ Explanation-Scope of-Wilful default-Mean· A B c -~ D Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960(for short, the Tamil Nadu Act) deals with the eviction of tenants and postu- lates that a tenant shaJI not be evicted whether in acquisition of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of s.10 or ss. 14-16. Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Act provides for the eviction of a tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. It lays· down that where the Controller is E satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent within 15 days after the expiry of the time fixed in the Agreement of tenancy or in the absence of any such Agreement, by the last date of the month next following that for which the rent is payable, he (tenant) undoubtedly commits a default lhe pro- viso to sub·s.2 provides that in any case fa!Iing in clause (i), if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant's default to pay or tender rent was not wilful, he may, notwithstanding anything contained in s.IJ, give the tenant a reasonable time, F not exceeding 15 days to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord upto the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or tender the applica- tion shall be rejected. The Explanation which was added by Act 23 of 1973 to the said proviso stipulates that for the purpose cf sub-s.2 of s IO, default to pay or tender rent shall be construed as wilful, if the default by the tenant in the payment or tender of rent continues after the issue of two months notice by the landlord claiming the rent. G In Civil Appeals Nos. 1178 of 1984, 1992 of 1982, 2246 of 1982 and 1659 of 1982, the respondents·landlords issued notices to the appeilants-tenants demanding the amount of rent in arrears and thereafter filed eviction petttions against the appellants.tenants, inter alia, on the ground of 14Wilful default". All the appellants-tenants complied with the notices issued by their respective \~ndlords except the appellant-tenant in Civil Appeal No. 1659 of 1982 where he made part payment only. However in Civil Appeal 3668 of 1982 and 4012 of 1982 the respondents-landlords had filed eviction petitions against the appellants- tenants without issuing such notices before filing of eviction petitions. In all the H A B c D E F 644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) 2 S.C.R. appeals, the Madras High Court passed and/or confirmed, as the case may be, the orders of eviction holding that the ground cf \,"iJful' default mentioned in section 10(2)(i) had been proved against the tenants. Hence these appeals by special leave. The common question of Jaw involved in these appeals was as to what is the interpretation of the term "wilful default" in the Explanation to the Proviso of sub-s.2 of s. 10 of the Tamil Nadu Act. Counsel for the appelants-tenants contender.I (i) that despite the explana- tion it is open to the court on an appraisement of the circurn~tances of each case to determine whether or not the default was wilful and in doing so it can- not be guided wholly and solely by the Explanation which is merely clarificatory in nature and (ii) that mere non-payment of arrears of rent after issue of two months' notice cannot in all circumstances auton1atically amount to a wilful default if the non-payment does not fulfil the various ingredients of the term 0 wil fut def au 't". On the other hand it was argued by counsel for the respondents- landlords (i) that the very purpose of the Explanation is to bring about unifor- mity in court decisions by laying down a conclusive yardstick in the shape of the Explanation and once it is proved that after issue of two months' notice if the tenant does not pay the arrears within the stipulated period of two months, he is Hable to be ejected straightaway. On the question of interpretation of the terms 'wilful default' appearing in the proviso to s.10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act coupled with the Explanation, the Court, HELD : Per Fazal Ali and A. Varadarajan JJ. (majority) 1. Though the Court is concerned mainly with the Tamil Nadu Act, yet in order to understand the contextual background of the words 'wilful default' and its proper setting, it wi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.