M. BHASKARversusJ. VENKATARAMA NAIDU, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A. NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 1022
- Decided
- 10 September 1996
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The omission to avail the statutory procedure does not disentitle the landlord to seek eviction for wilful default.
Summary
The appeal arose under the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, where the appellant, M. Bhaskar, was alleged to have wilfully defaulted on rent from June to October 1990. The landlord, J. Venkataramana Naidu, was represented by his brother‑in‑law A. Narayanaswamy Naidu. The appellant contended that the landlord was residing in Hyderabad and that rent was being paid through the attorney, asserting a contrary contract. The Court held that the familial relationship did not excuse the tenant’s duty to pay rent and that wilful default existed. It further ruled that the tenant’s failure to invoke the remedial procedure under Section 8 (and the consequent notice under Section 11) does not deprive the landlord of the right to seek eviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the appellant was granted three months to vacate the premises without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether a tenant’s omission to follow the procedure prescribed in Section 8/11 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act bars the landlord from seeking eviction for wilful default.
- Whether the relationship between the landlord and the attorney holder, or alleged intermittent rent payments, can defeat a claim of wilful default.
Legislation cited
- Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960s. 10(2)(1), s. 11, s. 8
Subjects
Judgment
A M. BHASKAR
v.
J. VENKATARAMA NAIDU, REP. BY HIS POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER A. NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU
'
~
SEPTEMBER 10, 1996
B
(K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
A.P. Buildi11gs (Lease, Rent a11d Eviction) Co11trol Act, 1960 :
Sectio11s 8, 10(2)(1) a11d 11-Wilfu,I default i11 payment of re11t-Evic-
c tio11 ordered by Courts below-Procedure prescribed for payment of rent whe11
landlord evades receiving rent-Omission to avail of the procedure by the
te11a11t does 11ot dise11title tlze la11dlord to seek eviction for wilfttl default.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12380 of
D 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.96 of the Andhra Pradesh
High C~urt in C.R.P. No. 4290of1995.
,...
A. Subba Rao and A.D.N. Rao for the Appellant.
E
L.N. Rao, V. Sridhar Reddy, G. Rama Krishan and S.U.K. Sagar for
the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
"-'.
Leave granted.
F
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh made on July 9, 1996 in CRP No. 4290/95. The matter
arises under Section 10(2)(i) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and
G -c •
Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The principal ground for eviction ordered by
all the three courts below is that the appellant has committed wilful default
in the payment of the rent from the month of June 1990 till October 31,
1990.
H The contention of Shri Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant,
778
M. BHASKAR v. J. VENKATARAMANAIDU 779
is that the respondent-landlord was staying in Hyderabad and the power A
of attorney holder is his brother-in-law- cum-maternal uncle and that
whenever he was coming to Madanpalle, he was paying the rents and,
therefore, there is a contract to the contrary. We find no substance in the
contention. Though parties are related, nonetheless when the appellant is
staying in the premises as tenant, he has got an obligation to pay the rent B
regularly. If he does not do so, he commits wilful default. If he finds that
the landlord is evading the payment of rent, procedure has been prescribed
under Section 8 of the Act to issue notice to the landlord to name the bank
and if he does not name the bank, the tenant has to file an application
before the Rent Controller for permission to deposit the rent. The appel-
lant did not avail of that remedy. The omission to avail of the procedure C
under Section 11 does not disentitle the landlord to seek eviction for willful
default.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, three months' time
from today is granted to the appellant to vacate the premises on his giving
an usual undertaking with four weeks from today. No costs. D
G.N. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.