ABDUL KADER v. G.D. GOVINDARAJ (D) BY LRS

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 460

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, B.N. AGRAWAL

Judgment text

ABDUL KADER v. G. D. GOVINDARAJ (D) BY LRS. APRIL 24, 2002 [R. C LAHOTI AND B. N. AGRAWAL, JJ. ] Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960: S. 10(2)(1), Explanation-Tenant in arrears ofrent-Eviction oftenant- Tenant to pay, in addition of monthly rent, half of annual property tax- Tenant failed to pay rent for three months as also amount ofproperty tax for three years-On receipt ofnotice tenant tendered only monthly rent and not property tax-Landlord refused to accept it being insufficient andfiled suit after statutory period of two months-Held, the amount oftaxes agreed to by the tenant to be paid to landlord was a part ofrent and the word 'rent' in s. 10(2)(i) has to be construed accordingly-According to the Explanation appended t 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. 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, we 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 tenn '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 learn. ed 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 . (To wit, see Messrs. Raval and Company v. K. G. Ramachandran (minor) and Ors. , (1968) 2 MLJ 50. 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 I0(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 suit was filed after awaiting the fulfilment of the demand for the requisite period of two months.

According to the Explanation, appended to sub-section (2) of Section I0, the default to pay or tender rent shall be construed wilful if default in payment or tender continues after issue of two months' notice by the landlord for Clearing the arrears. This Explanation came up for consideration of this Court in S. Sundaram v. V. R. Pattabhiraman, AIR (1985) SC 582 and held 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. It has been further held that where the landlord chooses to issue two months notice and the rent is not paid that would be conclusive proof of the default being wilful unless the tenant proves his incapability of paying rent due to unavoidable circumstances. Needles to say, it is not the case of the tenant that there were any such unavoidable circumstances which had rendered him incapable of paying the rent.

For the foregoing reasons, no fault can be found with the view taken by the High Court holding the tenant guilty of wilful default in payment of rent and hence, liable to be evicted under Section I0(2)(i) of the Act. The appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly. As there has been no appearance on behalf of the landlord-respondent, there shall be no order as to costs. R. P. Appeal dismissed.