LexSANKARAN PILLAI (DEAD) BY LRS. versus V.P. VENGUDUSWAMI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SANKARAN PILLAI (DEAD) BY LRS. v. V.P. VENGUDUSWAMI AND ORS. JULY 29, 1999 [V.N. KHARE AND S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] Rent Control and Eviction : Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960-Sub-sections A B (1), (2) and (4) of Section 1 I-Application for eviction against a tenant on C ground of default in payment of rent-Requirement of the tenant to deposit all the arrears of rent and the rent which may subsequently fall due until the termination of the proceedings, within time provided and in the manner prescribed, in order to contest the application for his eviction-Non-deposit, of such rent-Consequences of-Held, if the deposit of rent is not made, the D Controller or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary stop all proceedings and pass an order of eviction against the tenant-Sufficient cause-Construction of-Held, the expression 'sufficient cause' necessarily implies an element of sincerity, bona fide and reasonableness showing that non-deposit of rent by the tenant was beyond his control and there was no element of negligence or in aciton E or lack of bona fides on his part in not depositing the rent within time. Direction to the appellant-tenant by the Rent Controller to deposit the arrears of rent in an eviction petition on ground of default in payment of rent-Non-compliance of such direction by the appellant-tenant on the ground that he was not required under law to deposit any arrears of rent or month F lo month rent as he himself was the landlord of the premises-Subsequent plea by the appellant-tenant that he did not deposit arrears and month to month rent under misaken belief-Held, such plea is an afterthought and not bona fide_ and cannot be said to constitute 'sufficient cause ' as to condone the non- deposit of arrears and also. month to month rent which was required to be G deposited by the tenant-Plea of non-depositing of arrears of rent on account of suffic~se was never a case set up by the tenant-The appellant- tenant 's subsequent deposit of the arrears of rent before the Appellate Authority being requirement of law for hearing the appeal on merits, cannot be treated as bona fide deposit. 1231 H 1232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 3 S.C.R. A Appellant-tenant entered into an agreement with the previous owner of the building in question, for purchase of the premises in dispute, in pursuance of which he paid a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs toward the part payment of consideration amount. Subsequently, certain disputes having arisen with regard to the mode of payment of the balance amount, the said agreement was repudiated B by the previous owner. Thereafter, the appellant-tenant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement. While the said suit was pending, the previous owner executed a sale deed in respect of premises in dispute in favour of first respondent. The first respondent after having purchased the said premises, filed a suit for ejectment of the tenant-appellant on various grounds, including the default in payment of arrears of rent. One of the grounds for ejectment C being default in payment of rent, the Rent Controller by order dated 2317/ 90 directed the appellant-tenant to deposit the arrears of rent. The said direction was not complied with by the appellant-tenant as a result of which the Rent Controller by an order dated 7 /8/90 passed an order for his eviction. The appellant-tenant preferred two separate appeals, one against the order D dated 23/7/90 and the other against the order dated 7/8/90 passed by the Rent Controller. Since the deposit of the arrears of rent was condition precedent for the appeals being heard on merits, the same were deposited by the appellant-tenant before the appellate authority. The appellate authority allowed both the appeals holding that the appellant-tenant was not liable to deposit the arrears of rent. Aggrieved, respondent no.J preferred two Civil E Revision Petitions before the High Court which were allowed. Hence the present appeals. On behalf of the appellant, it was· contended that the fact that the tenant after having entered into an agreement with the erstwhile owner of the building, paid considerable amount of money towards part performance of the F agreement and his further filing of suit in the Civil Court for Specific Performance of the agreement constituted sufficient cause for non-depositing the arr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.