Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.42 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 10 in The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
Section 116 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Nagubai Ammal & Others vs B. Shama Rao & Others on 26 April, 1956
The next question is whether the tenants by non-payment of
rent for one or two months can be said to have committed 'wilful
default'. It was not disputed at the hearing that simply non-payment
of rent by the tenant is not enough; there should be a 'wilful default'
so as to make out a ground for eviction under the Act. The expression
wilful default as employed in Section 10(2) of the Act came up for the
consideration of this Court in S.Sundaram Pillai etc. etc. Vs. V.R.
Pattabiraman etc.etc. (1985) 1 SCC 591. After dealing with all
the relevant aspects touching the expression and the setting in which
the expression has been employed in the Act, this Court held "Thus,
a consensus of the meaning of the words "wilful default" appears to
indicate that default in order to be wilful must be intentional,
deliberate, calculated and conscious, with full knowledge of legal
consequences flowing therefrom. Taking for instance a case where a
tenant commits default after default despite oral demands or
reminders and fails to pay the rent without any just or lawful cause, it
cannot be said that he is not guilty of wilful default because such a
course of conduct manifestly amounts to wilful default as
contemplated either by the Act or by other Acts referred to above."
D.C. Oswal vs V.K.Subbiah And Ors on 12 November, 1991
The course of conduct prevailing between the parties for collecting
rent is one of the relevant factors. If the landlord has been accepting
payments made in lumpsum for quite a long time and in a situation
where the landlord had consented to collect rent for two to three
months at a time, non-payment of rent for some little time cannot
constitute wilful default, is the view taken by this Court in
Premchand Ranka Vs. A. Vasanthraj Khatod & Ors. (1992) 1 SCC
369 and D.C. Oswal Vs. V.K. Subbiah and Ors. (1992) 1 SCC 370.
In the case before us we have the landlord's own statement that rent
was being collected from the tenants by the landlords once in two
months. Then there is either the absence of notice or a doubt about
the service of notice on the tenant from the landlords demanding
payment of rent. Additionally there are the facts that a sister of
landlord was pressurizing the tenants to make apportionment of rent in
her favour and the Municipal Corporation was holding out threat of
eviction if arrears as to premises were not directly paid to it. These
two events could have reasonably caused a wavering in the mind of
tenants to whom to pay. In this state of the facts non-payment of rent
for one month in respect of one of the premises and for two months in
respect of the other cannot be enough to brand the tenants as 'wilful
defaulters'.