Dakaya @ Dakaiah v. Anjani

Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated February 13,1995 passed in Civil Revision Petition No.2824 of 1994. By the said impugned judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed the revision G application made against the order dated July 4, 1994 of the Additional Chief .Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R.A. No.203 of 1992 affirming the order dated April 29,1992 passed by the Prl. Rent Controller. Secunderabad in R.C. No. 316 of 1988. The respondent-landlady made an application under Section 10 of H the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 DAKAYA v. ANJANI 293 (hereinafter referred to as the A.P. Rent Act) for eviction of the tenant A appellant on the ground of wilful default of payment of rent for the period September, 1988 to November, 1988 amounting to Rs.1125. There is no dispute in this case that the tenant failed to make the payment within the stipulated period for the said months. It however, appears to us that the landlady gave a notice to the tenant on December 6,1988 claiming payment B of rent for the said months of September, 1988 to November, 1988. The landlady however, demanded surrender of the tenancy of the tenant within one week from the date of receipt of the notice dated December 6, 1988. The tenant initially sent a money-order for a sum of Rs.375 being the monthly rent on December 7,1.988 and such amount has been received by the landlady and accepted by her. Within five days thereafter, on Decem­ ber 12, 1988, the tenant sent a Bank Draft for Rs.1125 and it is an admitted position that such draft was received by the landlady before filing the suit for eviction. The said draft, however, has not been encashed by the landlady and the same has been deposited before the Rent Controller in the eviction proceedings. The Eviction Petition was filed before the Rent D Controller on December 19, 1988. It has been held by the Rent Controller that the tenant having committed wilful default, the landlady is entitled to get the order of eviction. Accordingly, order of eviction was made. The said view was upheld in appeal and as aforesaid the revision application was dismissed E by the High Court. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has drawn our attention to the decision of this Court in the case of S. Su11- dmwn Pillai Etc. v. V.R. Pa11abira111a11, [ 1985] 2 SCR 643 ~ AIR1985 SC F 582. In the said decision, the provisions of Section JO of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 was taken into considera­ tion. It may be indicated here that Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is pmti mate1ia similar to Section 10 -of the A.P. Rent Act excepting that in Tamil Nadu Act an explanation has G been added to the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Act. The said explanation provides that for the purpose of sub-sec- tion (2) of Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Act, default to pay or tender rent shall be construed as wilful, if the default by the tenant in the payment or tender of rent continues after the issue of two monlhs notice by the landlord claiming the rent. This Court in the aforesaid case of S. Sundaram H 294 A Pillai has indicated that default per se cannot be construed as wilful and keeping in mind the beneficial purpose of the Rent Acl lo protect the eviction of the tenant, if the payment has been made before the institution of the suit, the cause of action for instituting of the suit, will vanish. In the instant case, immediately on receipt of demand of payment of rent, the tenant initially sent a sum of Rs.375 by money order and thereafter a Bank Draft for Rs.1125 covering the entire period of default from September, 1988 to November, 1988 was sent to the landlady. It therefore, appears to us that there was no occasion to proceed on the footing that there was a wilful default for which an order for eviction of the tenant was to be passed. As the tenant had already sent the Bank Draft covering the entire default, there was also no occasion for the Rent Controller to direct deposit of arrears within the stipulated period. In our view the Rent Controller, the first appellate court and the High Court have failed to appreciate the incidence of tendering the entire amount under default before the institu­ tion of the suit. As a result, the courts below have erroneously proceeded D on the footing that there had been a wilful default for which the landlady was entitled to a decree for eviction. We may indicate here that the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tenant will suffer serious prejudice if an order of eviction is maintained because he is carrying on his business in the tenanted E premises. The learned counsel has also submitted that if it commends to this Court that interference under discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is not warranted unless the tenant is prepared to pay a reasonable and fair market rent, the tenant-appellant is willing to pay·: such monthly rent as may appear just and proper to this Court, so that the . F order Clf eviction is set a.side and the appellant is permitted to continue his possession. It appears to us that the tenant-appellant is carrying on business in the disputed premises and the order of eviction cannot but affect his interest seriously. It also appears to us that whether wilful or not, the fact G remains that the tenant defaulted in payment of rent for several months for which the landlady, stated to be poor and helpless widow, has suffered considerable prejudice. It therefore, appears lo us that it will he consonant to equity and justice if the interference with the impugned order of eviction is made in this appeal with a direction to the tenant to pay fair and H reasonable rent to which the tenant-appellant is ready and willing. Con· DAKA YA v_ ANJANI 295 sidering the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of A eviction by directing that the tenant-appellant would pay to the respondent­ lan<llady the rent for the premises in question with affect from October 1, 1995@ Rs-550 (Rupees five hundred fifty only) per month. The appellant­ tenant will also pay any other amount, if remains unpaid towards the payment of rent at the old rate of Rs.375 per month till September 30, 1995 within a period of six weeks from today. In default, the appeal will stand dismissed. We however, make it clear that this order will not preclude the landlady to seek eviction of the tenant in future on such grounds as may be available in law. The appeal is accordingly allowed without any order as to costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed. c