The landlord issued a lawyers numberice on 1.9.77 to the tenant to clear up the dues.
It was stated on behalf of the respondent landlady that the appellant companymitted wilful default in payment of rent from June 1976 onwards and after repeated demands a sum of Rs.
2246 of 1982, the respondent landladies had let out the premises to the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.
The authorities below found against the arrangement of depositing the rent in the Bank and ordered the eviction of the appellant on the ground of wilful default.
325 payable according to English calendar month.
Assuming that the appellant had made the said payment, the respondent further companytended that from February 1977 to July 1978 the appellant was in arrears, thereby companymitting a wilful default.
On the other hand, the companyduct of the landlord in filing a suit and number encashing the Bank Draft was motivated with a view to get a decree for eviction on false excuse.
The respondent landlord filed an eviction petition on 1.4.1980 in the companyrt of the Rent Controller, after verifying from the Bank, that the tenant had number deposited the rent for the months of January and February 1980, thereby companymitting a wilful default.
3668 of 1982, the appellant took out the premises from the respondent for number residential use on a monthly rent of Rs.
4012 of 1982, the tenant occupied the premises at a monthly rent of Rs.
The Rent Controller did number agree with the companytentions of the respondent and held that the default was number wilful and the requirement for own Occupation of the landlay was number bona fide.
In civil appeal No.
It is number in dispute that the rent from September, 1971 on wards has number been paid and that by the time the eviction petition was filed, the default was only for the month of September 1971.
1178 of 1984 From the Judgment and Order dated the 15th July, 1982 of the High Court of Madras in Civil Revision Petition No.
In Civil Appeal No.
6211 of 1983 From the Judgment and Order dated the 5th November, 1982 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Civil Revision Petition No.
4012 of 1982 From the Judgment and Order dated the 23rd November, 1982 of the High Court of Madras in Civil Revision Petition No.
39.2 which was, however, number encashed by the landlord and returned to the tenant after filing of the eviction petition, for reasons best known to him.
3668 of 1982 From the Judgment and Order dated the 20th October, 1982 of the High Court of Madras in Civil Revision Petition No.
However, on appeal the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and accepted the plea of the tenant that as he was ill he was number able to pay the rent.
After receipt of the numberice the tenant paid the rent of two months only and for the remaining two months the tenant companyld number offer any satisfactory explanation and, therefore, the High Court in revision agreed with the findings of both the companyrts below in regard to wilful default of payment of arrears of rent and ordered eviction of the tenant on this ground alone.
The High Court, however, did number agree with the findings of the companyrts below with regard to bona fide requirement of the landlord and held that the landlord companyld number ask for a number residential portion for residential purposes having leased it out for a number residential purpose.
1992 of 1982 From the Judgment and Order dated the 17th December, 1981 of the High Court of Madras in Civil Revision Petition No.
In revision, the High Court did number agree with the finding of the Appellate Authority and restored the finding of the Rent Con troller and ordered the eviction of the appellant, holding that the explanation offered by the tenant companyld number be accepted as his sons were carrying on the business in the same premises and numberhing pre vented them from paying the rent to the landlord of the appellant was ill.
1959 of 19X2 From the Judgment and Order dated the 14th December, 1981 of the High Court of Madras in Civil Revision Petition No.
2246 of 1982 From the Judgment and Order dated the 5th November, 1981 of the High Court ot Madras in Civil Revision Petition No.
1000 was paid by him on 1.4 77.
As numbernotice was given by the landlord, Explanation to proviso to s. 10 2 of the Act does number apply at all.
There was some misunderstanding between the parties over payment of rent and as a result of which it was agreed that the tenant would deposit the rent in the Bank.
1000 was paid by him on 1.4.1977.
The brief facts are that the appellant became a tenant under the father of the respondent in 1953 at a monthly rent of Rs.
The Rent Controller found that the default in payment of rent was number wilful and therefore dismissed the appl.cation of the landladies.
In Civil Appeal No.
The high Court, therefore, upheld the finding of the Appellate Authority and ordered eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default.
A petition for eviction was filed by them on 2.11.76 for number payment of rent by the tenant from January 1976 to September 1976, a period of 9 months.
1992 of 1982, the respondent landlord filed an eviction petition against the appellant tenant on the grounds of wilful default and the premises needing repairs.
Against this decision of the Chief Judge, City Small Causes, the respondents filed a revision petition in the High Court.
4012 of 1982, the appellant is in occupation of the residential premises bearing No 17 New No 59 , Burkit Road T. Nagar, Madras on a monthly rent of Rs.
He had paid rent for five months to the Income Tax Department on behalf of the respondent but he did number produce any receipt evidencing payment to the Income Tax Department.
K S. Ramamurthy, and A.T.M. Sampath, for the Appellant in Civil Appeal No.
In civil appeal No.
However, the second ground was number pressed and the only point which survived for deter mination was whether there was any wilful default on the part of the appellant.
2246 of 1982, the respondent landladies let out the premises to the tenant appellant for number residential use on a monthly rent of Rs.
3983 of 1981 S., Chitale and P. N. Ramalingam for the Appellant in Civil Appeal No.
S. Krishnamurthy Iyer for the Respondent.
But before filing the eviction petition, the respondents on 6.7,1976 issued a numberice to the tenant to pay the dues and on 17.7.76 the appellant paid a sum of Rs.
1397 of 198 AND Civil Appeal No.
15 which was subsequently mutually agreed to be increased to Rs.
On appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and held that the default, was wilful.
1630 of 1980.
600 for number residential use.
The Rent Controller found the tenant to be a wilful defaulter and companysequently order his eviction.
6211 of 1983, the respondent tenants were given the suit premises No.
The appellant on receipt of the numberice paid up the amount of the arrears, amounting to Rs.
The respondent also issued a numberice on 16.1.78 demanding the dues amounting to Rs.
The High Court upheld the decision of the companyrts below and held that the appellant had wilfully defaulted in the payment of rent and ordered the eviction of the appellant.
G. K. K Mani, V. shekher and P.R. Setharaman for the Respondents in Civil Appeal No.
4012 of 1982.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant sent a detailed reply on 30.1.78 alongwith a Bank Draft for Rs.
300 per month.
49 per month.
However, during toe pendency of the matter, the original landlords sold away their interest in the property in favour of the present appellants before us and, therefore, the question of bona fied requirement abated there itself.
In revision, the High Court did number agree with the companytention of the appellant that he was number wilful defaulter as immediately after filing of the eviction petition he had paid the entire arrears even before the serving of summons The High Court held that there was numbersatisfactory explanation by the tenant for numberpayment of rent for the period from January to June 1976 before the issue of numberice Even after the payment of rent the tenant companymitted further default till the petition for eviction was filed on 2.11.76.
But, on the around of wilful default, the eviction of the appellant was ordered.
630 which was accepted by the landladies without prejudice.
AND Civil Appeal No.
WITH Civil Appeal No.
WITH Civil Appeal No.
WITH Civil Appeal No.
WITH Civil Appeal No.
The respondent companytended in his petition that the appellant became a defaulter in payment of the rent as he did number pay the rent for the months of June 1977 to January 1978.
The respondent filled an eviction petition against the appellant on the ground of wilful default and bona fide requirement for her own occupation.
On appeal, the Appellate Court came to the companyclusion that the tenant had companymitted wilful default in payment of rent from May 1976 onwards as on 1.4.77 and from December 1976 as on 10.4.77.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
S. Vaidianathan and K. K Mani for the Respondents.
275 per month in the year 1964.
392 which was, however, number encashed by the respondent and returned to the appellant subsequent to the filing of an eviction petition which was filed on 11.8.1978.
5181582 Abid Road, Hyderabad, on a monthly rent of Rs.
As indicated above, it was number open to the landlord after having received the entire amount of arrears before filing of the suit to have filed a suit for past companyduct of the tenant.
In Civil Appeal No.
The High Court agreed with the lower companyrts with regard to wilful default for the month of September, 1971 and reversed the finding with regard to subletting but on the ground of wilful default ordered eviction of the respondents.
S. Krishnamurth Iyer.
6211 of 1983.
1659 of 1982.
So far as this appeal is companycerned, as the entire rent had been paid up in pursuance of the numberice dated 17.9.79 even prior to the filing of the suit, it is manifest that on the date of filing of the suit numbercause of action in presenti having arisen, the suit should have been dismissed on this short ground alone as being number maintainable.
Aggrieved by the said decision, the respondents tenant filed an appeal to the Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and the learned Chief Judge by his judgment held that wilful default in payment of rent for the month of September 1971 as also the question of sub letting was proved.
In civil Appeal No.
In civil appeal No.
However, the appellate authority was of the view that the respondent had number been able to prove her case for bona fide requirement.
1659 of 1982, the respondent landlord filed an eviction petition against the appellant tenant in respect of a numberresidential premises on two grounds 1 wilful default in payment of rent from 1.5.77 to 31,8.77, and 2 bona fide requirement for personal use.
The appellant, despite repeated reminders, did number pay the rent for the period from October 1978 to August 1979.
3396 of 1981.
2477 of 1982.
4087 of 1982.
G. Ramachandran, and A.V. Rangam for the Appellant in Civil Appeal No.
6,600 on 3.10.79, i.e., within the stipulated period of two months.
171582, Ward B, Old companyresponding No.
The appellants landlord filed a suit under s. 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1960 on 12.11.71, against the respondents for eviction on three grounds 1 wilful default by the tenants in payment of rent for the months of September, October and November 1971 total amount being Rs.
The Rent Controller upheld both the grounds of wilful default and subletting.
In Civil Appeal No.
4012 of 1984.
But, the respondent companytended that in view of the past companyduct of theappellant he was guilty of wilful default within the meaning of proviso to s. 10 2 of the Act.
The respondent filed a suit on 2 12.79 for evicting the appellant on two grounds wilful default in payment of rent, and 2 material acts of waste companymitted in the building.
225 which was, by mutual companysent, increased to Rs.
S. Nambiar for the Appellant in Civil Appeal No.
1992 of T. M. Sampath for the Respondent.
V.S. Narasimhachari for the Respondent K Ramkumar for the Appellant in Civil Appeal No.
2, New No.
The respondents filed an eviction petition on 2.11.76 against the tenant on the ground of wilful default for number payment of rent for the period from January 1976 to September 1976, i.e., for a period of 9 months.
1178 of 1984 K. Sen and A.T.M. Sampath for the Appellant in Civil Appeal No.
900, 2 the tenants sublet the premises to one Hanumantha, and 3 that the premises were required bona fide for their own use.
This appeal, therefore, merits dismissal on this ground alone.
3668 of 1982.
and S. Balakrishna for the Appellant in Civil Appeal No.
152 of 1981 .
Padmanbhan and D.N. Gupta for the Respondent in Civil Appeal No.
2246 of 1982.
1178 of 1984.
The Rent Controller, after an equiry, ordered eviction of the tenant on both the grounds and the Appellate Authority companyfirmed the findings of the Rent Controller.
From 1.7.66, the rent was again agreed to be increased to Rs.
