Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MR. P. SRIRAMAMURTHY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MRS. VASANTHA RAMAN
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/02/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the Madras High Court, made on 6.1.1995 in C.R.P. No.404
of 1993.
the appellant is the talent and the respondent is the
landlady. Admittedly, a lease for 11 months was executed on
18.2.1998 at a rent in the sum of Rs.2,800/- per month.
Notice was given on June 13,1998 on the ground that the
appellant had committed wilful default in the payment of the
rent for three months. Reply thereto was given on June
20,1998 denying the allegations. By the time, the petition
came to be filed by the respondent, the default came to be
for six months. As a consequence, O.A No.2709/88 was filed
for eviction of the respondent under sections 10(2) (i) and
10(ii) (b) of Tamil Nadu Building Lease and Rent Control
Act, 1960. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on the
ground of wilful default and also for using the premises for
purpose other than for which it was let out. On the appeal,
it was reversed. But in the revision. the High Court held
that the appellant has committed wilful default in the
payment of the rent. Thus, it confirmed the order of
eviction passed by the Rent Controller.
The question is : whether the appellant has committed
wilful default of payment? In the counter affidavit filed in
this Court, it is specifically stated that lease for 11
months was granted with an intention that after the
retirement of the respondents husband they could come back
from the United States of America and settled down
permanently in Madras the demised premises. It is also
stated in paragraph 12 of the Counter-affidavit that wife
and the husband sustained injuries in a car accident and due
to the severe back pain, particularly during winter season,
they had decided to come back. In fact, her husband retired
from service on April 15,1995. When the respondents husband
retired from service, they decided to permanently come back
and settle down in Madras. Thus it is obvious that they
needed their house for personal occupation. It is true that
the need for personal occupation was not pleaded. It is
settled law that for moulding the relief, subsequent events
can be taken note of. Under those circumstances, the relief
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
of eviction could be granted on the ground of personal
occupation. The amount of Rs.24,000/- deposited by the
appellant shall be adjusted towards the arrears of the rent.
If the arrears to be paid, time is given to the appellant to
pay the same. Six months time from today is granted to the
appellant to deliver the vacant possession of the premises
on filing usual undertaking within a period of four weeks
from today. The respondent is also directed to file an
affidavit within a period of six weeks from today that after
their coming back from the States, they shall neither let
out the building to the third party nor induct any party and
shall permanently stay in the back for the United States of
America within a period of ten years from today. In the
event of their leaving for the United States within the said
period the talent would be at liberty to seek possession of
the premises.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs