Case Brief: Balwant Singh and Ors. Vs. Anand Kumar Sharma and Ors.

Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgement: 28th January, 2003
Bench: CJI , Justice S.B. Sinha & Justice AR. Lakshmanan.
Facts of the Case: The appellants herein are the tenants. The landlord brought a suit for eviction of the tenant, inter alia on the ground of personal necessity as well as for default in payment of rent. The trial court dismissed the suit. However, the first appellate court allowed the appeal of landlord and thus the suit on the ground of default was decreed. The second appeal, by the tenants, was dismissed. The High Court held that mere acceptance of delayed rent by the Landlord did not amount to waiver of the right which was accrued to him under the Act and also the tenant has committed default in payment of the rent. It is against the said judgment, the tenants preferred present appeal by means of a special leave petition.
Judgement of the Case: The Supreme Court relied upon the Judgement of Satyanarain Kandu vs. Smt. Hemlata and others (1996 PLR 110 SC), where the Court passed an order presumably in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of Constitution of India. In that case, it was categorically held that the default had taken place but the same was held to be merely a technical one. If a cause of action arose for the landlord to file a suit for eviction against the tenant, such a cause of action cannot be held to be non-existent only because, in the opinion of this Court, the default was technical one. The said decision also does not lay down the correct view of the law and must be overruled. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly held that by reason of the said two decisions, the Full Bench decision of the High Court cannot be said to have been over-ruled. In C.A. No. 5077/1998, which the court had decided, the SC held that where a statute empowers the Court to extend time or further time when a tenant fails to deposit rent within the stipulated time, only in such cases, the Court possesses power to extend time and in no other cases. For aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.