Supreme Court of India
M. BHASKAR versus J. VENKATARAMA NAIDU, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A. NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU on 10 September 1996
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
A
M. BHASKAR
v.
J. VENKATARAMA NAIDU, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A. NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU
SEPTEMBER 10, 1996
B
(K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
A.P. Buildi11gs (Lease, Rent a11d Eviction) Co11trol Act, 1960 :
c
Sectio11s 8, 10(2)( 1) a11d 11-Wilfu,I default i11 payment of re11t-Evic-tio11 ordered by Courts below-Procedure prescribed for payment of rent whe11 landlord evades receiving rent-Omission to avail of the procedure by the te11a11t does 11ot dise11title tlze la11dlord to seek eviction for wilfttl default.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12380 of D [1996. ]
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.96 of the Andhra Pradesh High C~urt in C.R.P. No. 4290of1995.
A. Subba Rao and A.D.N. Rao for the Appellant.
E
L.N. Rao, V. Sridhar Reddy, G. Rama Krishan and S.U.K. Sagar for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted. F
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh made on July 9, 1996 in CRP No. 4290/95. The matter G [arises under Section 10(2)(i) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and ]Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The principal ground for eviction ordered by all the three courts below is that the appellant has committed wilful default in the payment of the rent from the month of June 1990 till October 31, 1990.
H
The contention of Shri Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, '
M. BHASKAR v. J. VENKATARAMANAIDU
is that the respondent-landlord was staying in Hyderabad and the power A of attorney holder is his brother-in-law- cum-maternal uncle and that whenever he was coming to Madanpalle, he was paying the rents and, therefore, there is a contract to the contrary. We find no substance in the contention. Though parties are related, nonetheless when the appellant is staying in the premises as tenant, he has got an obligation to pay the rent B regularly. If he does not do so, he commits wilful default. If he finds that the landlord is evading the payment of rent, procedure has been prescribed under Section 8 of the Act to issue notice to the landlord to name the bank and if he does not name the bank, the tenant has to file an application before the Rent Controller for permission to deposit the rent. The appel-lant did not avail of that remedy. The omission to avail of the procedure C under Section 11 does not disentitle the landlord to seek eviction for willful default.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, three months' time from today is granted to the appellant to vacate the premises on his giving an usual undertaking with four weeks from today. No costs.
D
G.N.
Appeal dismissed.