SHRIKRISHNA OIL MILL Vs. RADHAKRISHAN RAMCHANDRA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SHRIKRISHNA OIL MILL
Click here to view full judgement.
Phukan, J. -
(1.)This appeal by special leave is by the tenant . The suit premises were taken on rent by the appellant at a rent of Rs. 1500/- per year for the purpose of running an oil mill. After the expiry of period of lease, the tenancy continued. The respondent landlord filed an application on 25-11-1981 under Section 15(2)(ii) of Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease) Control Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act') before the Controller for the eviction of the appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent since 1-11-1978 till the date of filing of the application. Prior to the filing of the present eviction application , the respondent filed a Civil Suit on 11-8-1981 for recovery of arrears of rent for the period between 1-11-1978 to 29-9-1981 amounting to Rs. 4250/- and on 7-10-1981 appellant appeared before the Court and deposited the amount which was accepted by the respondent. Both the Rent Controller and the appellant authority held that the appellant was a defaulter and accordingly ordered for his eviction. The Revision Petition filed by the appellant tenant before the High Court under Section 26 of the Act was also rejected by the impugned judgment.
(2.)We may state here that by order dated March 3, 2000, this Court recorded the admitted position that possession of the suit premises was already obtained by the respondent , therefore, directed that pending this appeal, respondent shall neither alienate the property nor induct any one else in the suit property till final disposal of the appeal.
(3.)We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The short question to be decided in this appeal is whether the appellant was a wilful defaulter of the rent on the date of filing of the application for eviction. From the impugned judgment, we find that the contention raised on behalf of the landlord that after the expiry of the yearly lease the appellant became a monthly tenant was rejected by the High Court holding that the appellant tenant continued to be a yearly tenant. According to the High Court rent was to be paid within one month after end of the yearly tenancy. In arriving at the above decision, the High Court relied on sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act. On the question of default, the Court was of the view that there were two defaults, first one being on the completion of the year from 1-11-1978 to 20- 10-1979 and second being from 21-10-1979 to 7-10-1980. It was held that there was a clear default on the part of the appellant as the arrears of rent was paid by the appellant when he appeared in the regular Civil Suit on 7-10-1981 and not within one month of the end of the yearly tenancy. The High Court also found fault with the appellant as after filing of the application for eviction the landlord was required to file civil suits for recovery of rent for subsequent periods and therefore held that tenant did not care to pay rent as and when it became due to avail the protection of the provisions of law. On these facts it was held that the default was wilful.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.