MODERN HOTEL GUDUR Vs. K RADHAKRISHNAIAH
LAWS(SC)-1989-4-52
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on
April 26,1989
MODERN HOTEL,GUDUR,REPRESENTED BY M.N.NARAYANAN
Appellant
VERSUS
K.RADHAKRISHNAIAH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MOHAMMAD SALIMUDDIN VS. MISRI LAL [RELIED ON]SARWAN KUMAR ONKAR NATH VS. SUBHAS KUMAR AGARWALLA [RELIED ON]
Cited Judgements :-
ANIL VIVEKANAND BELSARE VS. ASHA DIGAMBAR THAKRE [LAWS(BOM)-2007-11-214] [REFERRED]SIVANRAJ VS. ESSAKKIMUTHU [LAWS(MAD)-1999-3-53] [REFERRED TO]
MEDICAL RELIEF SOCIETY OF SOUTH CANARA MANIPAL VS. SHIVMALA PRITHVIRAJ URS [LAWS(KAR)-1991-8-40] [DISTINGUISHED]
SHANTI DEVI AGRAWAL VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(MPH)-1998-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEN KAMAL JOHAR VS. MADANLAL AGARWAL [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-11-68] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIDAS BAPUDAS DARBAR VS. RUDRAVVA [LAWS(SC)-2001-8-34] [REFERRED]
ABDUL RAZAK P. M. VS. K. C. THOMAS [LAWS(KER)-2022-6-65] [REFERRED TO]
ALLAHABAD BANK VS. K KISHORE [LAWS(DLH)-2007-7-270] [REFERRED TO]
PARUL BALA DEBNATH VS. UMATARAROY [LAWS(GAU)-2005-1-32] [REFERRED TO]
SOHANLAL SEWAK VS. MOHANLAL AGARWALA [LAWS(GAU)-2011-9-78] [REFERRED TO]
V SURYANARAYANA VS. SITARAMA CHIT FUND CO [LAWS(APH)-1992-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
K D KRISHNA VS. P VENKAT RAO [LAWS(APH)-2001-9-147] [REFERRED TO]
NAZUNUDDHIN AHMED VS. K NARASIMHA RAO [LAWS(MAD)-1993-2-39] [REFERRED TO]
NAZUNUDDHIN AHMED VS. K NARASIMHA RAO [LAWS(MAD)-1993-2-39] [REFERRED TO]
SANJIVANI ASHOK CHAVAN VS. JAYANT ANANT BELSARE [LAWS(BOM)-2004-2-173] [REFERRED]
HIRA LAL AND ORS. VS. WAKF DERA MAHANT PURSHOTTAM DASS AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2016-1-117] [REFERRED TO]
S KAYAROHANAM VS. N K S NATARAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-2014-7-174] [REFERRED TO]
N VIJAYALAKSHMI VS. C R PRASAD ALIAS RAJENDRA PRASAD [LAWS(MAD)-2008-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
S. VENKATESWARAN VS. V. PARTHASARATHY NAIDU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-391] [REFERRED TO]
RAJU VS. JAWAHAR HASAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-11-140] [REFERRED TO]
Michael Mary VS. Ramesh [LAWS(MAD)-2004-3-279] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED ZACKAIYA VS. ABDUL AZIZ [LAWS(MAD)-1995-4-101] [REFERRED TO]
MANIK LAL VS. RAVINDRA KUMAR [LAWS(PAT)-2013-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
KRANTI SWAROOP MACHINE TOOLS PVT LIMITED VS. KANTA BAI ASAWA [LAWS(SC)-1994-1-50] [APPLIED]
MANIKKOTH SHANIBA VS. KUNNOTH AYISHA [LAWS(KER)-2022-7-368] [REFERRED TO]
DHONAJO SUBHANA JADHAV VS. BABASAHEB SADASHIV SHETE [LAWS(BOM)-1997-7-138] [REFERRED TO]
SAI INVESTMENTS VS. BHARTI SHIPYARD LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-129] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDERA VS. A RAJASHREE K NAIDU [LAWS(APH)-2011-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
KHURSHEED SULTANA VS. MIR ASHIF ALI [LAWS(APH)-2008-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR PROMOTERS BANGALORE VS. J S A GAJENDRA REDDY [LAWS(KAR)-2005-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR KRISHNALAL PATEL VS. CONTINENTAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-54] [REFERRED TO]
GANESHLAL VS. NAJAMUNNISA BEGUM [LAWS(APH)-1992-11-19] [REFERRED TO]
PANDULURU RAJESWARI VS. N V MADHUSUDANA GUPTA [LAWS(APH)-2001-10-125] [REFERRED TO]
DWARKADAS HIRALAL LAHOTI VS. KAZI MUBAROZUDDIN [LAWS(BOM)-2007-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
NALLA THAMPY THERA VS. ABDULLA [LAWS(KER)-2002-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHURAMALINGAM VS. RAJU [LAWS(MAD)-2012-11-300] [REFERRED TO]
VIKESH KUMAR O. JAIN VS. HEMALATHA BEN S.THAKKER [LAWS(MAD)-2021-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
MADALSA DEVI VS. MRIDULA CHANDRA [LAWS(PAT)-1992-9-48] [REFERRED TO]
RASHMI DEKA BAISHYA VS. TRIBODH KUMAR DAS [LAWS(GAU)-2021-12-80] [REFERRED TO]
ZAHIRA BEGUM VS. N K VISHALAKSHI [LAWS(KAR)-1990-7-78] [FOLLOWED ON]
SHAIK RASOOL VS. RATHI MOHAN RAO [LAWS(APH)-1999-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
A.K.PADMANABHAN VS. SIVASUBRAMANIAM [LAWS(MAD)-2014-1-148] [REFERRED TO]
A.K.PADMANABHAN VS. SIVASUBRAMANIAM [LAWS(MAD)-2014-1-148] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAN VS. GOMATHY AMMA [LAWS(KER)-1989-10-37] [REFERRED TO]
SEWALI SAIKIA VS. DIPTI RANI BORA [LAWS(GAU)-2010-11-38] [REFERRED TO]
VASANTHA RAMAN VS. THIRU SRI RAMAMOORTHY [LAWS(MAD)-1995-1-126] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR VS. COL. JASWINDER SINGH BAINS AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-8-212] [REFERRED TO]
TARUNA GANGWAL VS. RADHEY SHYAM MERATWAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-5-33] [REFERRED TO]
A K PADMANABHAN VS. SIVASUBRAMANIAM [LAWS(MAD)-2013-10-120] [REFERRED TO]
A K PADMANABHAN VS. SIVASUBRAMANIAM [LAWS(MAD)-2013-10-120] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKRISHNA THEATRES LTD VS. GENERAL INVESTMENTS AND COMMERCIAL CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(KAR)-1992-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
KILLICK INDUSTRIES LTD VS. THIMMAIAH RAMACHANDRAN [LAWS(KAR)-1994-6-34] [REFERRED TO]
M.C. ABDUL GAFOOR VS. K. ABDURAHIMAN AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-2-140] [REFERRED TO]
P S VENKATARAJAN VS. T A GOVINDARAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-1990-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
CHEKKA RAMANIAH VS. S MARIAPPAN [LAWS(MAD)-1992-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
JOSYUL JAGAN MOHANDAS VS. PYDA VENKTESAM [LAWS(APH)-2005-12-41] [REFERRED TO]
DEOKI NANDAN BAJAJ VS. LUKU BARMAN [LAWS(GAU)-2006-11-84] [REFERRED TO AND IN]
NARAIN DASS P. GODHWANI VS. NENU MAL [LAWS(DLH)-2014-8-207] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDER KUMAR GANDHI S/O LATE GULABCHAND GANDHI R/O FLAT NO. 201, H.NO.4 VS. BINDESH KAMDAR S/O LATE RAMESH KUMAR 3 [LAWS(APH)-2016-9-47] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH TUKARAM LONKAR VS. VINAYAK DEORAO BHORE [LAWS(BOM)-2006-11-38] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATA RAMANAIAH K VS. P RUKMINAMMA [LAWS(APH)-1996-11-78] [DISTINGUISHED]
P K CHAKRABORTY VS. JANARDAN ROY [LAWS(CAL)-2010-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP SAKHARAM RAUT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
M. JITENDERA VS. A. RAJASHREE K. NAIDU [LAWS(APH)-2011-8-138] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATHI SHETTY VS. B HANUMANTHAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2013-3-99] [REFERRED TO]
S SAHABUDEEN VS. MUNIAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-1994-3-96] [REFERRED TO]
P NALLA THAMPY THERA VS. SECRETARY [LAWS(KER)-2002-1-59] [REFERRED TO]
K NARASIMHA RAO VS. T M NASIMUDDIN AHMED [LAWS(SC)-1996-2-115] [APPLIED]
AHMAD HUSSAIN VS. GHOUSIA BEGUM [LAWS(APH)-1997-9-109] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA VARA PRASAD V V VS. S SURYA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1996-9-145] [REFERRED TO]
ASHIT MUKHERJEE VS. BHABADEB MUKHERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2002-7-98] [REFERRED TO]
NANDANAM TILES & SANITARIES (P) LTD. VS. ABDUL GAFFUR [LAWS(KER)-2022-6-71] [REFERRED TO]
LINGAM PREMCHAND VS. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION [LAWS(APH)-2024-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. RAM PIARI [LAWS(P&H)-2008-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
NANDI KHANNA VS. SUNEEL AIYER [LAWS(MAD)-2009-1-131] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Ranganath Misra, J. -
(1.)This is a tenant's appeal by special leave against the order of eviction from a commercial premises at Gudur in Andhra Pradesh. The Controller, the Appellate Authority and the High Court have concurrently found that the appellant was a wilful defaulter liable to be evicted.
(2.)Under document No. 1327 of 1969, a thirty-year lease with an annual stipulated rent was granted in favour of one Narayanan, a partner of the Hotel, for a term of 30 years beginning from 9th of Sept. 1961. For the first 15 years rent was stipulated at the rate of Rs. 150 per month and for the second span of 15 years rent was to be escalated to Rs. 200 per month, and the tenant undertook to pay the rent by the 9th of every succeeding month. The lease deed further stipulated:
"Out of the advance of Rs. 6,500, the second party shall deduct every month Rs. 75 from the stipulated rent up to Rs. 1,500 and the balance of Rs. 5,000 shall be paid back to the second party by the first party under valid receipt after the expiry of the lease period."
Thus, by March, 1971 the amount of Rs. 1,500/- had been adjusted and the landlord held Rs. 5,000/- refundable to the tenant.
(3.)Action for eviction was initiated on the plea that the tenant had failed to pay the rent for a certain subsequent period. Courts below debated the main - perhaps the only - contention as to whether the plea of payment which the tenant advanced had been established. On behalf of the landlord the account books of the Hotel were placed and the benefit of S. 34 of the Evidence Act was claimed. Lot of attention was bestowed in the Courts below on the question as to whether the oral evidence along with the presumption arising under S. 34 of the Evidence Act had not established the position that no payment and as claimed had been made. On the finding that payment had not been established, eviction was ordered.
(2.)Under document No. 1327 of 1969, a thirty-year lease with an annual stipulated rent was granted in favour of one Narayanan, a partner of the Hotel, for a term of 30 years beginning from 9th of Sept. 1961. For the first 15 years rent was stipulated at the rate of Rs. 150 per month and for the second span of 15 years rent was to be escalated to Rs. 200 per month, and the tenant undertook to pay the rent by the 9th of every succeeding month. The lease deed further stipulated:
"Out of the advance of Rs. 6,500, the second party shall deduct every month Rs. 75 from the stipulated rent up to Rs. 1,500 and the balance of Rs. 5,000 shall be paid back to the second party by the first party under valid receipt after the expiry of the lease period."
Thus, by March, 1971 the amount of Rs. 1,500/- had been adjusted and the landlord held Rs. 5,000/- refundable to the tenant.
(3.)Action for eviction was initiated on the plea that the tenant had failed to pay the rent for a certain subsequent period. Courts below debated the main - perhaps the only - contention as to whether the plea of payment which the tenant advanced had been established. On behalf of the landlord the account books of the Hotel were placed and the benefit of S. 34 of the Evidence Act was claimed. Lot of attention was bestowed in the Courts below on the question as to whether the oral evidence along with the presumption arising under S. 34 of the Evidence Act had not established the position that no payment and as claimed had been made. On the finding that payment had not been established, eviction was ordered.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.