Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Special Leave Petition (civil) 20220-20221 of 2000
PETITIONER:
N. VELMURUGAN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K. N. GOVINDARAJAN
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/02/2002
BENCH:
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri & S.N. Variava
JUDGMENT:
S. N. VARIAVA, J.
Leave granted.
These Appeals are against the Judgement dated 18th February,
2000 in C.R.P. No. 2255 of 1998 and an Order dated 28th August,
2000 in Review Application No. 49 of 2000 of the High Court of
Madras.
The facts leading to these Appeals are as follows:-
The mother of the Appellant was a tenant of the Respondent. She
entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 24th January, 1994 with the
Respondent in respect of the same property. The agreement provided
that the mother of the Appellant could collect rent from the other
tenants in the property. The mother of the Appellant expired on 9th
September, 1996. The Appellant issued a notice dated 16th August,
1996 calling upon the Respondent to complete the sale.
After receipt of the notice the Respondent filed an Eviction
Petition on the ground of willful default and arrears of rent. It was
claimed that the Appellant’s mother was in arrears of rent from 31st
May, 1989 to 31st December, 1994 of the monthly rent of Rs. 350/-
and from March, 1995 till her death on 9th September, 1996 of the
monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. It was claimed that after the death of the
mother the Appellant was in arrears of rent till the date of filing of the
eviction petition. The Appellant contested the eviction petition and
averred that pursuant to the Agreement to Sell there was no
relationship of landlord and tenant. The Appellant then filed a suit for
specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 24th January, 1994.
That Suit is still pending.
By an Order dated 7th July, 1997 the eviction petition was
dismissed. However, an Appeal against the order of dismissal was
allowed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority by its Order dated 29th
April, 1996. The Rent Control Appellate Authority directed the
Appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on or before 30th June,
1998.
The Appellant filed a Civil Revision Petition No. 2255 of 1998 in
the High Court of Madras. The Appellant also filed a Miscellaneous
Petition seeking stay of the order of deposit. The Appellant then
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
deposited the sum of Rs. 40,000/- on 11th September, 1998. As
deposit was made the High Court by Order dated 14th September,
1998 (passed in the Miscellaneous Petition) extended time to deposit
upto 11th September, 1998. This Order has not been challenged by
the Respondent. The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed by the
impugned order dated 18th February, 2000. The High Court held that
there was nothing wrong in the order of the deposit.
It appears that in spite of the fact that the Civil Review Petition
and the stay application were pending before the High Court, the
Respondent applied to the Trial Court for striking out the defence of
the Appellant and for passing of a decree of eviction. On 1st July,
1998 the Trial Court passed a very cryptic Order, which reads as
follows:
"1. Petition allowed.
2. The respondent is ordered to evict the building. Time
limit is one month."
When the Appellant learnt of the Order, he applied for a review
of Order dated 18th February, 2000 to point out the fact that in spite of
the High Court extending time to make the deposit the trial Court had
ordered eviction. The High Court did not deal with this aspect and
dismissed the Review Petition by Order dated 28th August, 2000.
We have heard the parties.
In our view, the order of eviction passed by the Trial Court
cannot be sustained. As stated above, the Trial Court has passed a
very cryptic Order. As the High Court has extended time to deposit
the amount there cannot be said to any default much less a willful
default. Instead of dismissing the Review Petition the High Court
should have considered this aspect. Once the High Court had
extended time it should have set aside Order dated 1st July, 1998.
The Order dated 1st July, 1998 cannot be allowed to stand. We,
therefore, set aside the Order dated 1st July, 1998. The Trial Court is
directed to now dispose of the eviction petition in accordance with law.
We further direct that the Appellant shall deposit within a period
of two months from today all arrears of rent upto December, 2001.
The Appellant will also continue to deposit future rent till the disposal
of the case. The first of such rent, for the month of January, 2002 to
be deposited on or before the 10th February, 2002. The rent of each
subsequent month to be deposited on or before 10th day of each
succeeding month.
The Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no
order as to costs.
..J.
(SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI)
J.
(S. N. VARIAVA)
February 1, 2002