Open iDraf
M.bhaskar v. J.venkatarama Naidu

M.bhaskar
v.
J.venkatarama Naidu

(Supreme Court Of India)

Civil Appeal No. 12380 Of 1996 (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17203 Of 1996) | 10-09-1996


K. Ramaswamy, J.

1. Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh made on July 9, 1996 in CRP No. 4290/95. The matter arises under Section 10(2)(i) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The principal ground for eviction ordered by all the three courts below is that the appellant has committed wilful default in the payment of the rent from the month of June 1990 till October 31, 1990.

3. The contention of Shri Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the respondent-landlord was staying in Hyderabad and the power of Attorney holder is his brother-in-law-cum-maternal uncle and that whenever he was coming to Madanpalle, he was paying the rents and therefore, there is a contract to the contrary. We find no substance in the contention. Though parties are related, nonetheless when the appellant is staying in the premises as tenant, he has got an obligation to pay the rent regularly. If he does not do so, he commits wilful default. If he finds that the landlord is evading the payment of rent, procedure has been prescribed under Section 8 of the Act to issue notice to the landlord to name the bank and if he does not name the bank, the tenant has to file an application before the Rent Controller for permission to deposit the rent. The appellant did not avail of that remedy. The omission to avail of the procedure under Section 11 does not disentitle the landlord to seek eviction for wilful default.

4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, three months time from today is granted to the appellant to vacate the premises on his giving an usual undertaking within four weeks from today. No costs.

5. Appeal dismissed.

Advocates List

For the Appellant - Mr. A. Suba Rao and Mr. A.D.N. Rao, Advocates. For the Respondent - Mr. L.N. Rao, Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Mr. G. Rama Krishan and Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, Advocates.

For Petitioner
  • Shekhar Naphade
  • Mahesh Agrawal
  • Tarun Dua
For Respondent
  • S. Vani
  • B. Sunita Rao
  • Sushil Kumar Pathak

Bench List

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMASWAMY

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAIZAN UDDIN

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.B. PATTANAIK

Eq Citation

1996 7 AD (SC) 864

(1996) 6 SCC 228

(1997) 1 MLJ 109 (SC)

1996 (2) RCR (RENT) 573

[1996] (SUPPL.) 5 SCR 778

1996 (7) SCALE 290

1996 (2) RCR 573

LQ/SC/1996/1453

HeadNote

— Rent Control and Eviction — Eviction — Wilful default — Omission to avail of procedure under S. 11 of AP Buildings Lease Rent and Eviction Control Act 1960 — Effect — Held, if tenant finds that landlord is evading payment of rent, procedure has been prescribed under S. 8 of the Act to issue notice to landlord to name the bank and if he does not name the bank, tenant has to file an application before Rent Controller for permission to deposit rent — Appellant tenant did not avail of that remedy — Omission to avail of procedure under S. 11 does not disentitle landlord to seek eviction for wilful default — Contract — Contract to the contrary — Held, though parties are related, nonetheless, when appellant is staying in premises as tenant, he has got an obligation to pay rent regularly — If he does not do so, he commits wilful default — Rent Control and Eviction — Eviction — Wilful default — Appellant tenant contended that respondent landlord was staying in Hyderabad and power of Attorney holder is his brother-in-law cum maternal uncle and that whenever he was coming to Madanpalle he was paying the rents and therefore there is a contract to the contrary — 1960 Act, S. 11