Supreme Court of India

MR. P. SRIRAMAMURTHYversusMRS. VASANTHA RAMAN

Citation: 1997 INSC 123
Decided: 7 February 1997
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: K RAMASWAMY

Holding

The Supreme Court held that eviction may be granted on the ground of personal occupation, even if not originally pleaded, by moulding the relief on subsequent events, and ordered the tenant to vacate within six months.

Summary

The appellant, a tenant, entered into an 11‑month lease in February 1988 but later fell into arrears, eventually defaulting for six months. The respondent, the landlady, sought eviction under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960, alleging wilful default and unauthorized use. While the Rent Controller ordered eviction, the appellate court reversed it, and the High Court reinstated the eviction on the basis of wilful default. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the tenant’s failure to pay rent amounted to wilful default and whether the ground of personal occupation could be invoked despite not being pleaded, considering the landlady’s subsequent need for the premises after her husband’s retirement and health issues. The Court held that relief can be moulded on subsequent events, allowing eviction on the ground of personal occupation, and ordered the tenant to vacate within six months, adjusting his deposit against arrears. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the respondent.

Issues considered

Whether the tenant's failure to pay rent constitutes wilful default under the Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960.
Whether the ground of personal occupation can be relied upon for eviction when it was not pleaded originally, based on subsequent events.
Whether the relief of eviction may be moulded on subsequent events under the Act.

Subjects

evictionwilful defaultpersonal occupationTamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Actrelief mouldinglease agreementrent arrears

Judgment

                      MR. P. SRIRAMAMURTHY                                 A
                                    v.
                      MRS. VASANTHA RAMAN

                           FEBRUARY 7, 1997

         [K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.]                             B

     Rent and Eviction :

      Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960:

       S.10(2)-Eviction of tenant-Moulding the relief-Landlady filed peti-
                                                                            c
tion for eviction of tenant for default in payment of rent-Subsequent events
showed that landlady needed the accommodation for personal occupa-
tion-Need for personal occupation not pleaded-Held, for moulding the
relief subsequent events can be taken note of-In the circumstances relief of D
eviction granted on ground of personal occupation-Six months' time granted
to tenant to deliver vacant possession of premises on filing usual undertak-
ing-Landlady directed to file certain undertakings, on default of which tenant
would be at liberty to seek possession of premises.




     From the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.95 of the Madras High
Court in C.R.P. No. 404 of 1993.

      S. Srinivasan for the Appellant.                                      F

      C.S. Vaidyanathan and S.R. Setia for the Respondent.

     The following Order of the Court was delivered :

     This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Madras   G
High Court, made on 6.1.1995 in C.R.P. No. 404 of 1993.

     The appellant is the tenant and the respondent is the landlady.
Admittedly, a lease for 11 month was executed on 18.2.1988 at a rent in a
sum of Rs. 2,800 per month. Notice was given on June 13, 1988 on the H
                                  1045
    1046                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1997] 1 S.C.R.
A ground that the appellant had committed wilful default in the payment of
  the rent for three months. Reply thereto was given on June 20, 1988
  denying the allegations. By the time, the petition came to be filed by the
  respondent, the default came to be for six months. As a consequence,
  O.A. No. 2709/88 was filed for eviction of the respondent under Sections
B 10(2)(i) and lO(ii)(b) of Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control
  Act, 1960. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on the ground of wilful
  default and also for using the premises for purpose other than for which
  it was let out. On appeal, it was reversed. But in the ·revision, the High
  Court held that the appellant has committed wilful default in the pay-
C ment of the rent. Thus, it confirmed the order of eviction passed by the
  Rent Controller.

          The question is: whether the appellant has committed wilful
   default of payment? In the counter-affidavit filed in this Court, it is
D ~pecifically stated that lease for 11 months was granted with an intention
   tl~at after the retirement of the respondent's husband they ,~ould come
   back from the United States of America and settled down permanently
   in Madras the demised premises. It is also stated in paragraph 12 of the
   counter-affidavit that wife and the husband sustained injuries in a car
   accident and due to the severe back pain, particularly during winter
E season, they had decided to come back. In fact, her husband retired
   from service on April 15, 1995. When the respondent's husband retired
   from service, they decided to permanently come back and settle down
   in Madras. Thus it is obvious that they needed their house for personal
   occupation. It is true that the need for. personal occupation was not
F pleaded. It is settled law that for moulding the relief, subsequent events
   can be taken note of. Under those circumstances, the relief of eviction
   could be granted on the ground of personal occupation. The amount of
   Rs. 24,000 deposited by the appellant shall be adjusted towards the
   arrears of the rent. If there is any arrears lo be paid, time is given to
   the appellant to pay the same. Six months' time from today is granted
G to the appellant to deliver the vacant possession of the premises on
   filing usual undertaking within a period of four weeks from today. The
   respondent is also directed to file an affidavit within a period of six
   weeks from today that after their coming back from the States, they shall
   neither let out the building to the third party nor induct any party and
 H shall personally stay in the building and shall not leave back for the
           P.SRIRAMAMUR1HYv. MRS. VASANTIIARAMAN                    1047

United States of America within a period of ten years from today. In the    A
event of their leaving for the United States within the said period, the
tenant would be at liberty to seek possession of the premises.

       The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

R.P.                                                  Appeal disposed of.   B

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "eviction"Sign in to search