SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This appeal is from the judgment and order of the High Court of judicature at madras in CRP No. 2674/93 dated July 28, 1998. The appellant is the landlady of a non-residential building comprising of two shops of which the respondent is the tenant.
(2.)The appellant filed an eviction petition before the principal district munsif, coimbatore, for eviction of the respondent on the ground that he committed wilful default in payment of rent for the shops from march, 1985 to August, 1985. The application was later amended to read that the rent was due for the period from March,1985 to February, 1986. The respondent contested the claim and denied that he committed wilful default in payment of rent for the said period. The learned trial court, by its order dated August 11, 1992, found that the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent and accordingly, ordered eviction of the respondent from the shops. He challenged the correctness of that order before the court of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Ilnd additional sub judge, Coimbatore) in rent control appeal no. 148/92. The learned appellate authority agreed with the finding recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal on July 14,1993. Dissatisfied with the order of the appellate authority, the respondent filed crp No. 2674/93 in the High Court, which was allowed on July 29, 1998 and the orders of the authorities below were set aside. The appellant is in appeal assailing the said order of the High Court.
(3.)Mr. K. K. Mani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, contends that when both the learned rent controller as well as the learned appellate authority recorded the finding that the respondent has committed wilful default, the High Court erred in allowing the revision petition without even reversing the finding of those authorities. Mr. L. N. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that the default committed by the respondent could not be said to be a wilful default and that as the appellant did not file an application under section 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for claiming the rent alleged to be due during the pendency of the rent proceedings, the High Court was right in arriving at the conclusion that the appellant had waived his claim for relief under section 11 (4).
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.