RAJA MUTHUKONE D Vs. T GOPALASAMI
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-135
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
March 21,2002
RAJA MUTHUKONE
Appellant
VERSUS
T. GOPALASAMI
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
S SUNDARAM PILLAI KOUSALAYA DEVT MURUGESA MUDALIAR N S DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL THAHIRA BEEVI M BALAKRISHNAN K R KRISHNAN VS. V R PATTABIRAMAN:P LAKSHMINARAYANA CHARYA:SELVARAJ CHETTIAR:B S RAMACHARI:R A MUTHIAH NADAR:FATHIMA BAI:P BHANUMATT [REFERRED]Cited Judgements :-
P SIVACHANDRAN VS. M P PURUSHOTHAM [LAWS(MAD)-2008-1-31] [REFERRED TO]VASANTHA MALIGA VS. N.BACHERLAL [LAWS(MAD)-2017-8-80] [REFERRED TO]
R MITTALAL JAIN VS. JOHNY DCOUTA [LAWS(MAD)-2004-4-233] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNASAMY VS. KANNIKA [LAWS(MAD)-2013-8-103] [REFERRED TO 13.]
Khyrunnissa VS. Rose Nissa [LAWS(MAD)-2005-3-117] [REFERRED TO]
PARITHA NACHIAR VS. SULTHARII AMMA SAHIBU NACHIAR [LAWS(MAD)-2019-4-954] [REFERRED TO]
A.K.PADMANABHAN VS. SIVASUBRAMANIAM [LAWS(MAD)-2014-1-148] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNASAMY VS. KANNIKA [LAWS(MAD)-2013-7-267] [REFERRED TO]
A K PADMANABHAN VS. SIVASUBRAMANIAM [LAWS(MAD)-2013-10-120] [REFERRED TO]
Michael Mary VS. Ramesh [LAWS(MAD)-2004-3-279] [REFERRED TO]
RAIS UDDIN VS. IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MORADABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2005-8-317] [REFERRED TO]
B BALAKRISHNAN VS. M CHEZHIEYAN [LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-344] [REFERRED]
P M PUNNOOSE VS. K M MUNNERUDDI [LAWS(SC)-2003-7-9] [REFERRED]
C T Meyammai VS. S Mohamed Kamil [LAWS(MAD)-2004-5-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA SINGH VS. P MANOHARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
P C PHILIP VS. R PONNUSAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2011-6-191] [REFERRED TO (]
R Mittalal Jain VS. Johny DCouta [LAWS(MAD)-2004-4-49] [REFERRED TO]
K BALARAMAN VS. K PONNURANGAM [LAWS(MAD)-2010-6-354] [REFERRED TO]
M JOGHEE GOWDER VS. GEORGE [LAWS(MAD)-2018-10-395] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)A suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground available under Clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been ordered to be decreed by the High Court. Feeling aggrieved thereby the tenant has filed this appeal by special leave.
(2.)For our purpose it would suffice to set out only a few relevant facts which, at this stage, are not in controversy. The rent for the months of June, 1983 to November, 1984 was not paid by the tenant to the landlord. On 7/12/1984 the landlord served a notice on the tenant claiming the rent in arrears as contemplated by Explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 10. The notice was served. The tenant replied to it. It appears that there were multiple legal proceedings initiated before different fora, between the landlord and the tenant which had all stood concluded. In two or three of such proceedings, the tenant had deposited the amount of rent. The dates of deposit are not known but the fact remains that the rent which was claimed as in arrears, was actually deposited. The factum of rent having been deposited in such proceedings was stated by the tenant in his reply to the notice. However, without waiting for the period of two months, the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on 2/1/1985 before the Rent Controller. Subsequent to the filing of these proceedings for eviction, on 18/1/1985 the landlord moved a petition, called the cheque memo, withdrawing the rent deposited by the tenant in different proceedings and the amount was also withdrawn.
(3.)The short question which arises for consideration is whether in such facts and circumstances the tenant can be said to have committed a wilful default in paying or tendering the rent to the landlord.
(2.)For our purpose it would suffice to set out only a few relevant facts which, at this stage, are not in controversy. The rent for the months of June, 1983 to November, 1984 was not paid by the tenant to the landlord. On 7/12/1984 the landlord served a notice on the tenant claiming the rent in arrears as contemplated by Explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 10. The notice was served. The tenant replied to it. It appears that there were multiple legal proceedings initiated before different fora, between the landlord and the tenant which had all stood concluded. In two or three of such proceedings, the tenant had deposited the amount of rent. The dates of deposit are not known but the fact remains that the rent which was claimed as in arrears, was actually deposited. The factum of rent having been deposited in such proceedings was stated by the tenant in his reply to the notice. However, without waiting for the period of two months, the landlord filed a petition for eviction of the tenant on 2/1/1985 before the Rent Controller. Subsequent to the filing of these proceedings for eviction, on 18/1/1985 the landlord moved a petition, called the cheque memo, withdrawing the rent deposited by the tenant in different proceedings and the amount was also withdrawn.
(3.)The short question which arises for consideration is whether in such facts and circumstances the tenant can be said to have committed a wilful default in paying or tendering the rent to the landlord.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.