Deciding Authority: The Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: R.C. LAHOTI & B.N. AGRAWAL
Date of Judgement: 24/04/2002
Facts:
The relevant facts are not in controversy. The premises are held by the tenant under a written contract of lease dated 1.1.1988 whereby the rent for the premises has been agreed to at Rs. 100 per month. Over and above, the amount of rent, the tenant has agreed to pay to the landlord a sum of Rs. 111 equivalent to one half of the annual property tax payable in the respect of the property. The tenant did not pay the rent due and payable for the months of January, February and March, 1990. The tenant had also not paid the amount due and payable on account of property tax @ Rs. 111 for the years 1987-1988, 1988-1989 and 1989-1990. Here, it may be stated that even prior to 1.1.1989, the tenant was holding the premises under a previous deed of leases, the only difference being that earlier the rate of rent was Rs. 60 per month, though, so far as the stipulation to pay the amount of property tax is concerned, it was the same and had remained unaltered. On renewal of lease, under the deed dated 1.1.1989 in substance the change was brought about only in the rate of monthly rent. On 26.3.1990, The landlord served a notice on the tenant demanding rent for the months of January to March, 1990 and also the amount of taxes due and payable by the tenant, as stated hereinabove. On 2.4.1990, the tenant tendered an amount of Rs. 300 to the landlord but not the amount of taxes. The tender was refused by the landlord on the ground that it was deficient, and hence, not a valid tender. Having awaited for a period of two months, i.e., the period of notice, the landlord initiated proceedings for eviction. These are tenant’s appeals by Special Leave against whom a decree for eviction from the suit premises has been passed on the ground available under clause (i) of sub-Section (2) of Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter the ’Act’, for short).
Judgement:
The short question which arises for consideration is: whether the tenant can be said to have committed a wilful default so as to attract the applicability of Section 10(2)(i) of the Act?
The term ’rent’ has not been defined in the Act and therefore, the Court shall have to go by the ordinary dictionary meaning of the term, ’rent’. As held in Karani Properties Ltd. v. Miss Augustine and Ors., AIR (1957) SC 309, the term ’rent’ is comprehensive enough to include, all payments agreed by the tenant to be paid to his landlord for the use and occupation not only of the building and its appurtenances but also furnishing, electric installations and other amenities agreed between the parties to be provided by and at the cost of the landlord. It was very fairly conceded by learned counsel for the appellant that ever since the decision of this Court in the case of Karani properties Ltd., the view being taken consistently by the High Court of Madras is that in the event of taxes having been agreed to be paid by the tenant, the same forms part of the rent . Thus, there is no doubt that the amount of taxes which was agreed to by the tenant to be paid to the landlord was a part of the rent and the word ’rent’ in Section 10(2)(i) of the Act has to be construed accordingly.
The suit filed by the landlord is preceded by a two months notice by the landlord served on the tenant demanding the payment of rent including the amount of tax in arrears. The explanation of Section 10(2) of the Act is forwarded by the Court in the case of S. Sundaram v. V.R. Pattabhiraman, AIR (1985) SC 582 and it was held that if despite notice, the arrears are not paid, the tenant is said to have committed a wilful default and he will be liable to be evicted forthwith.
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.
Sudipta Bhowmick, 4th Year, KIIT School of Law.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS