ABDUL KADER Vs. G D GOVINDARAJ D
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-165
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
April 24,2002
ABDUL KADER
Appellant
VERSUS
G.D.GOVINDARAJ
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KATNANI PROPERTIES LIMITED VS. AUGUSTINE [REFERRED RELIED ON (PARA 5) 2.]STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. K SATYNARAYANA [REFERRED APPROVED (PARA 5) 3.]
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 :-
EIH LIMITED VS. NADIA A VIRJI [LAWS(SC)-2022-8-2] [REFERRED TO]MILAP CHANDRA JAIN VS. ROOP KISHOR [LAWS(ALL)-2014-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
LEELADHAR PARASAD VS. A G SANWAL AND 2 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2007-7-41] [REFERRED TO]
TEAM CONSULTANTA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. SWAPNA LAHIRI [LAWS(CAL)-2006-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA DEVILAL JAIN VS. NATIONAL (INDIA) CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS [LAWS(BOM)-2021-4-132] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER PARKASH VS. DIAL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-173] [REFERRED TO]
DAVINDER KAUR VS. KULBIR KAUR [LAWS(DLH)-2013-10-88] [REFERRED TO]
LEELADHAR PARASAD VS. SMT. A.G. SANWAL AND 2 ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2007-5-72] [REFERRED TO]
EIH LIMITED VS. NADIA A. VIRJI [LAWS(CAL)-2016-3-46] [REFERRED TO]
PILANI INVESTMENT AND INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMIT VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2015-10-113] [REFERRED]
GOKULADAS J. SHET TALAULIKAR (DEC) VS. NARAYAN @ SANTOSH S. SINAI USGAONKAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2018-5-91] [REFERRED TO]
POODAR PROJECTS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-2012-5-118] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL JALIL SON OF LATE HABIB ULLAH VS. SPECIAL JUDGE E.C.ACT/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2007-8-254] [REFERRED TO]
HARVINDER SINGH VS. BHAGWANT SINGH AND ANR. [LAWS(UTN)-2007-3-56] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI B M SHARMA VS. SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN SHARAN & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-218] [REFERRED TO]
SUPARNA BOSS VS. SANTANU MAJUMDAR [LAWS(CAL)-2007-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH MALHOTRA VS. SHANKAR LAL AGGARWAL [LAWS(DLH)-2011-3-304] [REFERRED TO]
NANDI KHANNA VS. SUNEEL AIYER [LAWS(MAD)-2009-1-131] [REFERRED TO]
APOLLO ZIPPER INDIA LTD VS. W NEWMAN & CO LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2015-10-128] [REFERRED]
FIRM PADAMNABH JAIKISHAN AND OTHERS VS. MOHAN LAL AGRAWAL [LAWS(UTN)-2007-5-52] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KAREEM VS. K K HASSAN [LAWS(KER)-2009-3-94] [REFERRED TO]
RAMPRASAD VS. SHASHI [LAWS(MPH)-2007-1-58] [REFERRED TO]
SABEY KHANAM VS. CHANCHAL VERMA AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2007-5-77] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)These are tenant's appeals by Special Leave against whom a decree for eviction from the suit premises has been passed 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 the 'Act', for short).
(2.)The relevant facts are not in controversy. The premises are held by the tenant under a written contract of lease dated 1-1-1989 whereby the rent for the premises has been agreed to at Rs. 100/- per month. Over and above, the amount of rent, the tenant has agreed to pay to the landlord a sum of Rs. 111/- equivalent to one half of the annual property tax payable in respect of property . The tenant did not pay the rent due and payable for the months of January, February and March, 1990. The tenant had also not paid the amount due and payable on account of property tax @Rs. 111/- for the years 1987-1988, 1988-1989 and 1989-1990. Here, it may be stated that even prior to 1-1-1989, the tenant was holding the premises under a previous deed of lease, the only difference being that earlier the rate of rent was Rs. 60/- per month, though so far as the stipulation to pay the amount of property tax is concerned, it was the same and had remained unaltered. On renewal of lease, under the deed dated 1-1-1989 in substance the change was brought about only in the rate of monthly rent.
(3.)On 26-3-1990, the landlord served a notice on the tenant demanding rent for the months of January to March, 1990 and also the amount of taxes due and payable by the tenant, as stated hereinabove. On 2-4-1990, the tenant tendered an amount of Rs.300/- to the landlord but not the amount of taxes. The tender was refused by the landlord on the ground that it was deficient, and hence, not a valid tender. Having awaited for a period of two months, i.e. the period of notice, the landlord initiated proceedings for eviction.
(2.)The relevant facts are not in controversy. The premises are held by the tenant under a written contract of lease dated 1-1-1989 whereby the rent for the premises has been agreed to at Rs. 100/- per month. Over and above, the amount of rent, the tenant has agreed to pay to the landlord a sum of Rs. 111/- equivalent to one half of the annual property tax payable in respect of property . The tenant did not pay the rent due and payable for the months of January, February and March, 1990. The tenant had also not paid the amount due and payable on account of property tax @Rs. 111/- for the years 1987-1988, 1988-1989 and 1989-1990. Here, it may be stated that even prior to 1-1-1989, the tenant was holding the premises under a previous deed of lease, the only difference being that earlier the rate of rent was Rs. 60/- per month, though so far as the stipulation to pay the amount of property tax is concerned, it was the same and had remained unaltered. On renewal of lease, under the deed dated 1-1-1989 in substance the change was brought about only in the rate of monthly rent.
(3.)On 26-3-1990, the landlord served a notice on the tenant demanding rent for the months of January to March, 1990 and also the amount of taxes due and payable by the tenant, as stated hereinabove. On 2-4-1990, the tenant tendered an amount of Rs.300/- to the landlord but not the amount of taxes. The tender was refused by the landlord on the ground that it was deficient, and hence, not a valid tender. Having awaited for a period of two months, i.e. the period of notice, the landlord initiated proceedings for eviction.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.