Holding

The Court upheld the Rent Controller’s orders under Sections 10 and 11, finding the tenant’s default willful and the eviction order valid.

Summary

The landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant for willful non‑payment of rent from March 1990 to July 1997 and alleged sub‑letting and demolition. Under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 the Rent Controller ordered the tenant to deposit all admitted arrears in Court by 22 Nov 1995, failing which her defence would be struck off. The tenant lodged a schedule on 21 Nov 1995 seeking to deposit rent only from June 1992 to Oct 1995 and did not make the full deposit, leading the Controller to strike off her defence and issue an eviction order on 22 Mar 1996. The Madras High Court set aside the eviction, holding that the tenant should be allowed to contest the main petition on its merits. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the tenant’s late schedule did not satisfy the statutory requirement, that the default was willful, and upheld the Rent Controller’s orders, setting aside the High Court judgment and granting the tenant two months to vacate.

Issues considered

The adequacy of the tenant's lodgment schedule filed on 21 Nov 1995 as compliance with the Section 11 order requiring full deposit of arrears.
Whether the tenant's defence could be struck off under Section 11 when the deposit was not made within the stipulated time.
Whether the eviction order under Section 10 is valid despite the High Court’s view that the tenant should be allowed to contest the main petition.

Legislation cited

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960s. 10, s. 11

Subjects

evictionrent defaultSection 11lease and rent controldefence struck offwillful defaulttenant complianceTamil Nadu Act

Judgment

A MARAGA THAM MAL
v.
KAMALAMMAL

SEPTEMBER 11, 2006

B [ASHOK BHAN AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]

Rent and Eviction: Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act, 1960--Sections 10 and I /-Default in payment of rent-Rent Controller
C directed tenant u/s.11 to deposit rent in Court, failing compliance of which,
his defence would be struck off-Deposit not made within stipulated time-
Defence struck offand eviction ordered-{;ha!lenge to-Held: Eviction n~zhtly
ordered as tenant had been deliberately avoiding payment of rent as and
when it fell due.

D The appellant-landlord filed eviction petition against the respondent-
tenant. on the ground of default in payment of rent fro~ March 1990 to 1997.
Appellant filed an application under Section 1.1 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 in which an order dated 9.11.1995 was
passed directing the tenant to deposit the entire admitted arrears of rent in
Court on or before 22.11.1995, failing compliance of which her defence would
E be struck off. The responden~ did not deposit the arrears of rent on the due
date and instead lodged a schedule on 21.l l.1995. In this lodgment schedule,
the respondents stated that she wanted to deposit the rent from the month of
June, 1992 to October 1995. This lodgment schedule came to be considered
and the issue of challan was ordered on 29.11.1995.

F The Rent Controller passed order on 1.12.1995 that the respondent ·'
failed to deposit the admitted arrears inspite of ample opportunities extended
to her and, therefore, her defence stood struck off. On 22.3.1996, Rent
Controller passed eviction order. On appeal, the appellate authority held that
the respondent was not showing due diligence to discharge a liability in the
G payment of rents. Respondent preferred revision petitions. High Court held
that the tenant should be given an opportunity to contest the main eviction
petition on merits. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

H 898
)-
MARAGATHAMMAL 1·. KAMALAMMAL [MARKANDEY KA TJU,J .] 899
HELD: There is no reason why the respondent lodged the schedule as A
late as on 21.11.1995, i.e. just the previous day prior to 22.11.1995 by which
date ~he was to deposit the entire admitted arrears in court under Section 11
of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The respondent
could have lodged this schedule on the very next day after the order dated
9.11.1995 i.e. on 10.11.1995 or within a day or two thereafter. It is admitted B
that the respondent-tenant has been deliberately avoiding the payment of the
rent as and when it fell due. Thus, the orders of the Rent Controller dated
9.11.1995 and 22.3.1996 are upheld. The impugned judgment of the High
Court is set aside and the respondent-tenant is granted two months time to
vacate the premises in question, failing which she will be evicted by Police
force. (903-D-F) C
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4053 of2006.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3 .2004 of the High Court of
Madras in CRP No. 1981-82/2000.
D
Ranjit Kumar and V. Mohana for the Appellant.

T. Raja for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

MARKANDEY KATJU, J. Leave granted. E

This appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 30.2.2004 passed
by the Madras High Court in CRP Nos. 1981 and 1982 of 2000.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
F
The impugned judgment of the Madras High Court wa5 delivered in two
revisions arising out of eviction order by the Rent Controller and an application
filed under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 9.11.1995 and the
consequential order dated 22.3.1996.

The appellant herein filed R.C.O.P. No.162 of 1992 against the respondent
for eviction on the grounds of willful default, demolition and reconstruction
and also subletting. The respondents premises is a non-residential one and
the monthly rent is stated to be Rs. 650/-. According to the appellant, the
respondent failed to pay the rent from March 1990 to 1997 apart from having
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. ; S.C.R.

A sublet the premises. It was also claimed that the building required demolition
and reconstruction. According to the respondent, the rents were paid regularly
till June 1992 and the first appellant refused to receive the rents from the
month of July 1992 as he demanded an enhanced rent. It was also claimed
that the rents from the month of July l 992 were deposited in a bank account.
The respondent also contended that the requirement of demolition and
B reconstruction was not bona fide. While the main R.C.O.P. was pending the
first appellant filed an application vide I.A. No.523 of 1993 under Section 1I
of the Act in which an order was passed on 9.11.1995, directing the respondent
to deposit the entire admitted arrears of rent into court on or before 22.11.1995
failing compliance of which the respondent's defence would be struck off.
C The respondent is stated to have filed a lodgment schedule on 21.11.1995, as
disclosed from the court seal found in the copy of the lodgment schedule filed
by the respondent. In the said lodgment schedule, the respondent wanted to
deposit the rents from the months of June 1992 onwards up to October 1995,
in all, a sum of Rs.26,650/- covering 41 months. The said lodgment schedule
came to be considered and issue of challan for depositing the sum ofRs.26,650/
D - was ordered only on 29.11.1995.
In the above stated circumstance, the Rent Controller passed orders on
1.12.1995 holding that the respondent failed to deposit the admitted arrears
in spite of ample opportunities extended to her and, therefore, her defence
E stood struck off and the I.A. was allowed. In view of the order passed in the
said I.A. No.523 of 1993, the Rent Controller also passed an order in the main
R.C.O.P. itself on 22.3.1996 ordering eviction. As against the above said
orders, the respondent preferred R.C.A. Nos. 63of1997 and 96of1998. R.C.A.
No.63 of 1997 is the appeal preferred against the order passed in I.A. No.523
of 1993. In fact, the respondent is stated to have filed the said appeal
F belatedly and for that purpose I.A. No.22 of 1996 in R.C.A. CFR No.27 4 of
1996 was filed on her behalf to condone the delay in filing the appeal. In the
said I.A. No.22 of 1996, the appellate authority directed the respondent to
deposit the arrears of rent from June 1992 to July 1997, in all, a sum of
Rs.39,650/- on or before 16.7.1997. The order in I.A. No.22of11:196. was passed
G on 8.7.1997. The respondent also deposited the sum of Rs.39,650/- on 14.7.1997.
Thereafter, the appeal came to be numbered as R.C.A. No.63 of 1997. Both the
appeals were disposed of by a common order dated 4.7.2000.

Agai11st the appellate's order dated 4.7.2000, two Revision Petitions ,i,.
were filed before the Madras High Court, which were disposed of by the
H impugned judgment.
MARAGATHAMMAL v. KAMALAMMAL[MARKANDEY KATnJ,I.] 901
The High Court in the impugned judgment has observed: "A perusal of A
the order of the appellate authority dated 4. 7.2000 discloses that the appellate
authority was under the impression that the respondent failed to deposit the
past arrears covering the period June 1992 onwards in spite of the orders
passed in I.A. No.523 of 1993 and also the subsequent order passed by the
appellate authority. Apparently, the said conclusion seems to have been made
without really appreciating the correct facts relating to the deposit of rent. In B
fact, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed before this court the
memo filed by the respondent pursuant to the order passed in I.A. No.22 of
1996, which memo was filed on 17. 7. l 997 confirming the deposit of the sum
ofRs.3'.),650/- vide challan No. 4044, dated 14.7.1997. Therefore, by the time,
the appellate authority was seized off the matter, the respondent is stated to C
have deposited the past arrears from the month of June 1992 onwards up to
July 1997 within the time granted by the appellate authority. The further fact
remains that the respondent has been meticulously depositing the rents for
the period subsequent to July 1997 onwards regularly to the credit of the
R.C.O.P. and that the appellant is also withdrawing the rents so deposited by
the respondent. D
In such circumstance;s, in all fairness, the respondent should be given
an opportunity to contest the main R.C.O.P. on merits, as I am of the view
that the respondent'has displayed her bona fide in so far as the payment of
rent during the pendency of the appeal proceedings. Viewed in that respect, E
the order of the appellate authority holding that the respondent was not
showing her due diligence to discharge her liabiHty in. the payment of rents,
cannot be affirmed". ·

We are afraid that we cannot agree with the view taken by the High
Court. F
In this case the landlady had filed the Eviction Petition in 1992, and the
respondent-tenant has defaulted in paying the rent from March 1990 up to
July 1997.

A petition dated 19.8.1993 was filed under Section 11 of the Act praying G
for a direction to the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent from March
1990 and to continue to deposit the monthly rents failing which, the defence
of the respondent in R.C.O.P. No.162 of 1992, should be struck off.

The relevant portions of Sections I0 and 11 of the Act are as follows:
H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A "Section I0 : Eviction of tenants-

(!) ···-·-········

(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the
Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving
the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the
B
application, is satisfied -

(i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him
in respect of the building, within fifteen days after the expiry of the
time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the
c absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next
following that for which the rent is payable, or

(ii)-(vii) .......... .

the controller shall make an order directing the tenant to put the
landlord in possession of the building and if the Controller is not so
D satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application:

Provided that in any case falling under clause (I) if the Controller is
satisfied that the tenant's default to pay or tender rent was not willful,
•
he may, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 11, give the
tenant a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days, t6 pay or tender
E the rent due by him <to the landlord up to the date of such payment
or tender and on such payment or tender, the application shall be
rejected.

Explanation : For the purpose of this sub-section, default to pay or
tender rent shall be construed as willful, if the default by the tenant
F in the payment or tender of rent continues after the issue of two
months notice by the landlord claiming the rent.

(3)-(8) ........ .

Section 11 : Payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of
G proceedings for eviction -

( l) No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been
made by a landlord under Section I0 shall be entitled to contest the
application before the Controller under that section, or to prefer any
appeal under Section 23 against any order made by the Controller on
H
MARAGATHAMMAL v. KAMALAMMAL [MARKANDEY KATJU. J.] 903
the application, unless he has paid or pays to the landlord or deposits A
with the Controller or the appellate authority, as the case may be, all
arrears of rent due in respect of the building up to the date of payment
or deposit and continuous to pay or to deposit any rent which may
subsequently become due in respect of the building until the
tennination of the proceedings before the Controller. or the appellate B
authority, as the case may be."

In this case an order was passed under Section 11 dated 9.11.1995,
directing the respondent-tenant to deposit the entire admitted arrears of rent
in court on or before 22.11.1995 failing compliance of which the respondent's
defence would be struck off. Admittedly, the respondent-tenant did not deposit C
the arrears of rent on or before 22.11.1995 and instead of that lodged a
schedule on 21.11.1995. In this lodgment schedule the respondent stated that
she wanted to deposit the rents from the month of June 1992 to October, 1995,
i.e. a sum of Rs.26,650/- covering 41 months. This lodgment schedule came
to be considered and the issue of challan for depositing the sum of Rs.26,650/
- was ordered on 29.11.1995. D
We see no reason why the respondent lodged the schedule as late as
on 21.11.1995, i.e. just the previous day prior to 22.11.1995 by which date
when she was directed to deposit the entire admitted arrears in court under
Section 11. The respondent could have lodged this schedule on the very next
day after the order dated 9.11.1995 i.e. on 10.11.1995 or within a day or two E
thereafter. We see no reason why she waited till the eve of 22.11.1995, which
was the last date of depositing the entire rent in Court. It is admitted that the
respondent-tenant has been deliberately avoiding the payment of the rent as
and when it fell due. Thus, we respectfully disagree with the view taken by
the Madras High Court and we uphold the orders of the Rent Controller dated F
9.11.1995 and 22.3.1996. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set
aside and the respondent-tenant is granted two months time to vacate the
premises in question, failing which she will be evicted by Police force. The
appeal is allowed. No costs.

D.G. Appeal allowed. G