Holding

The Supreme Court held that the tenant's failure to pay rent was wilful default and dismissed the appeal.

Summary

The landlady filed three eviction petitions against the tenant under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, alleging wilful default in rent and unauthorised sub‑letting. The tenant contended that, because an interlocutory application under Section 11 was pending, she was justified in withholding rent and that her illiteracy and reliance on counsel negated any wilful default. The Rent Controller and the appellate courts found wilful default and ordered eviction, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined the definition of "wilful default" as articulated in J. Jemzons v. Aliammal and held that the tenant’s failure to pay rent, despite having legal representation, amounted to intentional or supine indifference, not mere ignorance. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, though the Court granted the tenant time until 30 April 2002 to vacate the premises.

Issues considered

Whether non‑payment of rent during the pendency of an interlocutory application under Section 11 constitutes wilful default under Section 10(2)(i) of the Act.
Whether the tenant's illiteracy and reliance on counsel can negate the finding of wilful default.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960s. 10(2)(i), s. 10(2)(ii)(a), s. 11

Subjects

evictionwilful defaultrent controlsub‑lettinginterlocutory applicationlandlord‑tenant

Judgment

MARIYAM BEGUM A
v.
BASHEERUNNISA BEGUM AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 26, 2001

[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] B

Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,
1960:

S. 10(2 )( i)-Eviction qf tenant on ground of wilful d~fault in payment of
rent-Landlady's petition for eviction qf tenant.for de.fault in payment of rent-
c
Another petition for eviction on ground qf sub-letting-A third petition .for
eviction on ground qf wilful d~fault in payment qf rent for a d(fferent period-
Eviction on ground qfwilful d~fault and sub-letting allowed by Rent Controller
and High Court-Tenant's plea that since an I.A. uls. 11.filed in the.first petition
was pending she thought that she need not deposit rent till matter was decided D
by Court and immediately after decision in the matter she deposited rent and
as such there was no wi(ful default-Held, during pendency qf I.A. tenant was
represented by advocate-She had the advantage of seeking advice from him,
if she had any doubt-There has been indifference rather supine indifference to
the obligation of payment of rent-Tenant's appeal dismissed. E
J. Jemzons v. Aliammal & Ors., [1999] 7 SCC 382, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1715 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 7.8.96 of the Andhra Pradesh High p
Court in C.R.P. No. 873 of 1993.

WITH

Civil Appeal No. 1716 of 1997.
G
Ms. K. Amreshwari, P. Venkat Reddy, Ms. R. Madhvi Lata and Guntur
Prabhakar for the Appellant.

Mahender Anand and Rajiv Nanda for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : H
345
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A The parties in these two appeals are common. The appellant is the tenant
in these appeals. and the first respondent is the landlady.
i j t'. I . _1 I (

Civil Appeal No. 1715/97 is from the order of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh in CRP 873/93 passed on August 7, 1996. Civil Appeal No. 1716/97
is from the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in CRP 17/93 passed
B on December 10, 1996. · · ' ·• · , '·

,, To appreciate the qu.estions that arise i!1 these cases, it will t;>e appropriate
to refer to the facts giving rise to these appeals briefly. The respondent filed
RC 244/83 in the Court of llnd Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, for
eviction of the appellant from the premises No. H. No, 11-4-773 & 11-4-773/
c 1, Bazar Street, Hyderabad, (for short 'the building') on various grounds
including d.efault in payment of rent for the period - May 1, 1983 to October
31, 1983 under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction)
Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'). While the said RC was pending, she
file<;t RC 20/85 before the Rent Gontroller seeking eviction of the respondent
D under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act on the ground that she has sublet a portion
of the suit premises to the second respondent therein who is cru:rying on the
business of supplying building material in the name of and style of Mis
~hyama Traders. She als9 filed RC 115/84 in the Court of Principal Rent
Controller, on the. ground that. the respondent .committed wilful default,in
payment of rent for the period - November 1, 1983 to 31st March, 1984, under
E
Section 10(2)(i) of the Act. While these cases were pending the first case, RC
244/83, was dismissed on• April '.4; 1988. The order of dismis.sal in that R.C.
has become final.
'' .. I I. t ; ';
In so far as the RC 115/84 (filed on the .ground of wilful default) is
F concerned, the learned Rent Controller'found that the respondent committed
wilful default in payment of rent and ordered eviction. That order was upheld
in appeal as well as in revision by the High Court. It is from this order Civil
Appeal 1716/97 arises.

On the ground of sub-letting the learned Rent Controler ordered eviction
G taking the view that subletting was proved. However, on appeal the learned
Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, set aside the judgment of
the Rent Controller and 'allowed the appeal on October 28, 1992. The matter
was carried to the High Court in CRP 873/93 and by. order dated 7.8.96 the
High Court set aside the order of the appellate authoi:ity and restored the order
H of the learned Rent Controller and thus allow~d the revisi9n. From that order
MARIYAM BEGUM v. BASHEERUNNISA BEGUM 347
Civil Appeal 1715/97 arises. A
So far as Civil Appeal 1716/97 is concerned Ms. K. Amreshwari, the
learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contends that non-payment
of rent during the said period - November l, 1983 to March 31, 1984 - was
due to the reason that I.A. filed in RC 244/83 under Section 11 of the Act was
pending before the learned Rent Controller, the appellant therefore thought that B

-. she need not deposit the rent till the matt~r was decided by the Court, therefore
the default in payment of rent cannot be treated as wilful default. The learned
counsel submits that immediately after passing the order on April 28, 1984, the
appellant paid the amount due under Exbts. Rl and R2 on May 8, 1984 and
July 17, 1984. Thus the default in payment of rent cannot be treated as wilful c
default and therefore the order of the High Court under challenge confirming
the order of the appellate court is. fit to be set aside. We are afraid, we cannot
acceed to the contention of the learned counsel, firstly because the learned Rent
Controller found the ground of wilful default against the appellant and t'!e
learned appellate Judge confirmed the same. The High Court thought it fit not
to interfere as the finding was a concurrent finding. And secondly on merit. D
What amounts to wilful default has been restated by this Court in J.Jermons
v. Aliammal & Ors., [1999] 7 SCC 382 as under :-

" ... 'wilful default' implies intentional or conscious violation of
obligation to pay the rent due; it may also be on account of supine E
indifference or callous or recalcitrant conduct. But if the default has
occasioned on account of ignorance, accident or compulsion or
circumstances beyond the control of the tenant, it cannot be termed as
'wilful default'. This has to be determined as a question of fact on the
facts and in the circumstances of each case."
F
It is this dicta which is also relied upon by the learned counsel to contend
that the default in payment of rent is not a wilful default. The learned counsel
submits that she is an illiterate lady and on account of ignorance she could not
pay the rent in time; she believed that as I.A. No. 11 was pending in the Court,
she could pay the rent only when the I.A. is decided. We are unable to accept
this contention. When the I.A. was pending in the Court, she was represented
G
by an advocate in all the three cases, noted above. She had the advantag~ of
seeking advice from her advocate appearing on her behalf, if she had any
doubt. This shows that there has been indifference rather supine indifference
to the obligation of the payment of rent to the landlady. In this view of the
matter we do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. H
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A In the view we have taken in this appeal we do not consider it necessary
to go into the other question, of subletting, in regard to the very same premises
which is subject matter of Civil Appeal 1715/1997. The appeal is accordingly
disposed of.

In the circumstances of the case the parties are directed to pay their own
B costs.

The learned counsel submits that the tenant is carrying on restaurant in
the premises and it is difficult to secure accommodation for shifting the business,
so a year may be granted to vacate the premises. In these circumstances, we
grant time to the appellant till 30th April, 2002 to vacate the premises and hand
c over peaceful possession of the same to the respondent subject to the appellant's
filing a usual undertaking within three weeks from today.

However, we make it clear that this order does not preclude the parties
from settling the matter if they so desire within the aforesaid period.
D R.P. Appeals disposed of.