N S M AHMAD JAMALIA BEEVI Vs. D N SHAH
LAWS(SC)-1997-7-122
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on July 30,1997

N S M Ahmad Jamalia Beevi Appellant
VERSUS
D N Shah Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellant is a landlady. She is aggrieved by the order dated 9/7/1996 of the Madras High court granting yet further time to the respondent tenant for depositing rent in spite of persistent default committed by him in violation of the provisions of Ss. (1 of Section II of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (18 of 1960 (for short "the Act").
(3.) The appellant is the owner and landlady of property bearing No. 145 Linghi Chetty Street, Madras. She let out the same to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 4,500. 00 with permission to sub-let the same. The premises comprise four independent shops. The appellant says the respondent is recovering enormous rent from these shops having sub-let the same. It has come on record in respect of the shop that the respondent is realising Rs. 3000. 00 per month as rent. Since the respondent committed default in payment of rent from September 1990, the appellant served a notice dated 23/9/1991 on him demanding rent for the period from 1/9/1990 to 31/8/19911 amounting to Rs. 54,000. 00 The respondent was told that in case he failed to pay rent proceeding for his eviction shall be instituted against him. In spite of the notice, the respondent did not pay the rent which led the appellant to file proceeding for his eviction under clause (i) of Ss. (2 of Section 10 of the Act. That was in October 1991. Notice of filing of the eviction proceeding was issued to the respondent. He failed to respond to the same and an ex parte order of eviction dated 31/7/1992 was passed against him by the Rent Controller. On an application filed by the respondent on 22/8/1992 ex parte order of eviction was, however, set aside. In spite of pendency of these proceedings on the ground of default in payment of rent the respondent did not pay any rent in breach of the provisions of Section 11 (1 of the Act. The appellant, therefore, filed an application under sub- section (4 of Section II of the Act requesting that she be put in possession of the suit premises.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.