MR.BHASKAR vs J. Venkatarama Naidu,rep. By His Power Of Attorneyholder A.
- Neutral1996 INSC 1022
- SCR[1996] Supp (5) SCR 778
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a tenant has committed willful default in the payment of rent, the fact that the landlord and tenant are related, or that the landlord's power of attorney holder is a family member who occasionally collected rent when visiting, does not constitute a contract to the contrary that would excuse the tenant's obligation to pay rent regularly under the lease. Where a tenant alleges difficulty in paying rent because the landlord is evading payment, the tenant's remedy is to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, which requires the landlord to name a bank for deposit of rent, and if the landlord refuses, to apply to the Rent Controller for permission to deposit rents; the tenant's failure to avail of this prescribed remedy does not prevent the landlord from seeking eviction for willful default under Section 10(2)(1) of the Act.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
RESPONDENT: J. VENKATARAMA NAIDU,REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEYHOLDER A.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/09/1996
BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R Leave granted.
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) (1) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent. and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The principal ground for eviction ordered by all the three courts below is that the appellant has committed willful default in the payment of the rent from the month of June 1990 till October 31, 1990.
The contention of Shri Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the respondent landlord was staying in Hyderabad and the power 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 regularly. If he does not do so, he commits willful 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 rents The appellant did not avail of that remedy. The omission to avail of the procedure 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 within four weeks from today. No costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free