{"id":151372,"date":"2003-04-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-04-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003"},"modified":"2015-03-03T22:45:22","modified_gmt":"2015-03-03T17:15:22","slug":"vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003","title":{"rendered":"Vasanthamma vs M. Jayaramaiah on 22 April, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Vasanthamma vs M. Jayaramaiah on 22 April, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 22\/04\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAKARAJ\n\nC.R.P.No.2772 of 1996 and C.R.P.No. 2773 of 1996\n\nA.G.Krishnamurthy(Since dead)\nby his L.Rs\n1. Vasanthamma\n2. Badrinath\n3. Sukanya                      .. L.Rs. of Petitioner in\n                                    both the petitions\n\n-Vs-\n\nM. Jayaramaiah                 .. Respondent in both the<\/pre>\n
                                   petitions<\/p>\n
        Civil  Revision  Petitions  filed  under  Section  25  of  Tamil  Nadu
\nBuildings  (Lease  and  Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1
\n973 and by Act 10 of 1980) as stated therein.\n<\/p>\n
!For Petitioner :  Mr.M.V.Krishnan<\/p>\n
^For Respondent :  Mr.P.Subba Reddy<\/p>\n
:COMMON ORDER<\/p>\n
        These  two  revisions  are filed against the order dated 28.08.1996 in
\nR.C.A.No.3 of 1993 and 2 of 1993  on  the  file  of  the  Appellate  Authority
\n(Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri), against the orders passed in R.  C.O.P.No.11
\nof  1990  and  9  of 1990 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif,
\nHosur).\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The averments in R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1990 are that the petitioner is a
\ntenant  of  a  shop  belonging  to  the respondent herein on a monthly rent of
\nRs.300\/-; that the respondent having received the rent  promptly  up  to  July
\n1998,  issued  receipts  therefor;  that  thereafter,  the  respondent did not
\nreceive the rent at all; that he did not issue receipt for the  payments  made
\nfor  three  months;  that  the  respondent did not respond to the petitioner’s
\nrequest to name the bank  in  which  he  could  deposit  the  rent;  that  the
\npetitioner  had  paid Rs.5,000\/- as advance; that on 18.4.1990, the respondent
\nsent a notice to the petitioner to  which  the  petitioner  sent  a  reply  on
\n16.5.1990  with  a  Cheque for Rs.6,300\/- on Central Bank; that the said reply
\nwith Cheque had been returned by the respondent’s advocate and that therefore,
\nthe petitioner has filed these petitions for deposit of the  rent  into  Court
\nunder Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act .\n<\/p>\n
        3.  In his counter, the respondent has stated that it is not true that
\nthe  petitioner  had  been  a  tenant  for 12 years and he was paying the rent
\npromptly; that the petitioner did not pay the rent from April 1998 i.e.  a sum
\nof Rs.7,800\/-;  that  these  respondents  maintain  a  receipt  book  and  the
\npetitioner had signed therein for payment of rent; that the petitioner did not
\ntake  steps  as  enunciated under the Rent Control Act that R.C.O.P.11 of 1990
\nfiled by these respondents is pending; that it is not true that the petitioner
\nhad paid Rs.5,000\/- towards advance; that the allegations that  the  reply  by
\npetitioner  together  with  cheque was returned by the respondent was not true
\nand therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1990 has been filed by the owner of shop  against
\nthe tenant on the allegations that the tenant did not pay rent from April 1998
\nin a sum of Rs.7,800\/-; that the landlord has always been issuing receipts for
\nthe  payment  of  rent; that the landlord wants to start a grocery shop of his
\nown in the s hop in question; that the tenant has started a business for which
\nit was not let out; that the tenant has a shop of his own  in  the  bus  stand
\nwhich  has  been rented out by him to a third party; that to the notice issued
\nby the tenant a suitable reply had been sent and that therefore, the tenant is
\nliable to be evicted.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  The tenant in his counter has raised similar  allegations  as  had
\nbeen  raised  by  him  in  his  petition  in  R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1990 and further
\ncontending that the demand by the landlord on his own business purposes is not
\ntrue and that therefore the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  The trial Court on consideration of the  materials,  allowed  R.C.
\nO.P.No.9 of  1990  and dismissed R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1990.  Aggrieved by that the
\nlandlord filed R.C.A.Nos.3 and 2  of  1993  and  the  appellate  authority  on
\nre-appreciation of the evidence dismissed both the appeals with costs.  Hence,
\nthese revisions.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   During  arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
\npetitioners besides bringing out the facts of the case as pleaded  by  parties
\nbelow  would bring out the salient features stating that the rent was Rs.300\/-
\nand the petition filed by the landlord was for eviction on grounds  of  wilful
\ndefault in payment of the rent by the respondent\/tenant and requirement of the
\npremises  for  personal  use and occupation of the landlord; that the original
\nlandlord Krishnamurthy died and the L.Rs.  impleaded to the proceedings;  that
\non  6.4.1988  was the last rent paid and thereafter for 26 months at a stretch
\nthere was no payment of rent at all; that a lawyer’s notice was sent for which
\na reply was sent along with a cheque for Rs.6,300\/- as the rent for 20 months;
\nthat the same was returned along with the rejoinder; that in fact the rent was
\ndue for 26 months on that date  and  hence  the  petitioner\/landlord  filed  a
\npetition  for  eviction  in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1990 ; that the tenant also filed
\nR.C.O.P.No.9 of 1990 and deposited a sum of Rs.6,300\/- under Section  8(4)  of
\nthe Tamil Nadu (Lease and Rent Control) Act; that the landlord’s R.C.O.P.  was
\ndismissed and the tenant’s R.C.O.P.  for depositing the rent was allowed; that
\nboth  the appeals preferred by the landlord were also dismissed confirming the
\norder of the Rent Controller and hence the above Civil Revision Petitions.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  The learned counsel continuing to argue would submit  that  it  is
\nthe  duty  of the tenant to tender the rent and not that of the landlord to go
\nand collect it from the tenant.   Citing  the  remarks  of  the  Rent  Control
\nAppellate  Authority  the  learned  counsel  would  submit  that the Appellate
\nAuthority should not have confirmed the findings of  the  Rent  Controller  at
\nall;  that  Section 8(4) and 8(5) of the Act are petitions to deposit the rent
\nbefore the Rent Controller.  At this juncture, the learned counsel would  cite
\nthe  following  judgments in support of his contentions, they are respectively
\nreported as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        i) 2002 SAR (CIVIL) 936 (E.PALANISAMY V.  PALANISAMY (D) BY  LRS.    &
\nORS.)<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
        ii) 1999-3  L.W.610 (TAMIL NADU MOTORS, REP.  BY GOWTHAM, MADRAS-29 V.
\nN.LAKSHMI)<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
        iii) (1994)II MLJ.  509 (MOHAMED ROWTHER V.  RAJALINGA RAJA)<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
        iv) (1995)I MLJ.  64 (ALAGUMANI V.  K.SHANMUGHAM AND OTHERS)<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
        v) 1997(III) CTC.39 (S.VENKATESULU V.  V.CHANDRA AND<\/a> 2 OTHERS)\n<\/p>\n
        vi) 1997(III) CTC 476 (VIJAYAKUMAR V.  RAVINDRAN)<\/a><\/p>\n
        9.  So far as the first judgment cited above (supra) is  concerned  in
\nparagraph 3 which is relied on by the petitioner it has been held:\n<\/p>\n
”  The  sole  question  for  consideration  in  these  appeals  is whether the
\nprovisions of Section 8 of The Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control Act),
\n1960 are to be strictly complied with by the tenant before he can seek benefit
\nunder the said provisions regarding deposit of rent in the  Court.    In  this
\nconnection, relevant provisions of Section 8 of the Act need to be quoted:\n<\/p>\n
        “Section 8:  (Landlord liable to give receipt for rent or advance):
\n        Sub-section
\n        (1)……..<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (2)  Where a landlord refuses to accept, or evades the receipt of, any
\nrent lawfully payable to him by a tenant  in  respect  of  any  building,  the
\ntenant  may,  by notice in writing, require the landlord to specify within ten
\ndays from the date of receipt of the notice by him, a bank into which the rent
\nmay be deposited by the tenant, to the credit of the landlord.\n<\/p>\n
        Provided that such bank shall be one situated in  the  city,  town  or
\nvillage  in  which the building is situated of if there is not such city, town
\nor village, within (five kilometers) of the limits thereof.\n<\/p>\n
        Explanation – It shall be open to the landlord to specify from time to
\ntime by a written notice to the tenant and subject to the proviso aforesaid, a
\nbank different from the one already specified by him under this sub-section.
\n(3) If the landlord specifies a bank as aforesaid, the  tenant  shall  deposit
\nthe  rent  in  the bank and shall continue to deposit in it any rent which may
\nsubsequently become due in respect of the building.\n<\/p>\n
(4) If the landlord does not specify a bank as  aforesaid,  the  tenant  shall
\nremit the rent to the landlord by Money Order, after deducting the money order
\ncommission.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  If the landlord refuses to receive the rent remitted by Money Order under
\nsub-section (4), the tenant may deposit the rent  before  the  Controller  and
\ncontinue  to  deposit  with  him any rent which may subsequently become due in
\nrespect of the building.”\n<\/p>\n
        10.  So far as the second judgment cited above is  concerned,  it  has
\nbeen held therein:\n<\/p>\n
“On  the  question  of  wilful  default  in  payment of arrears of rent, it is
\nsettled law that mere default cannot be taken to be wilful.  ‘ Wilful default’
\nimplies a conscious or volitional failure to discharge obligations  laid  down
\nby  law  on  a  tenant,  which  also  includes  a supine indifference to these
\nobligations.  In deciding the element of ‘wilful default’, each case will have
\ntobe judged on its own merits.  It is also settled law that it is the duty  of
\nthe  tenant  to  pay the rent regularly every month as enjoined in the statute
\nwithout expecting any demand from the landlady in that regard.   If  he  finds
\nthat  the  landlady  is  evading  the  receiving  of  rent, procedure has been
\nprescribed under Section 8 of the Act to issue notice to the landlady to  name
\nthe  bank  and  if  she  does  not  name  the  bank, the tenant has to file an
\napplication before the Rent Controller for permission  to  deposit  the  rent.
\nThe omission to avail of the procedure under Section 8 would certainly entitle
\nthe landlaldy to seek eviction for wilful default.”\n<\/p>\n
        11.  In the third judgment cited above it has been held:\n<\/p>\n
“From  the deposition of the tenant as R.W.1 it could be clearly inferred that
\nthe default was wilful.  All that the tenant deposes as  explanation  for  the
\ndelayed  payment every month is that the landlords did not demand it and hence
\nhe did not pay.  But, it is settled law that it is the duty of the  tenant  to
\npay  the  rent  regularly  every  month  as  enjoined  in  the statute without
\nexpecting any demand from the landlord in that regard.”\n<\/p>\n
        12.  In the fourth judgment cited above it has been held:
\n“The liability to pay rent accrues on the expiry of every month.  To  consider
\nwhether the default is wilful or otherwise, there cannot be any hard and fasst
\nstandard of  rule.  It is tobe determined on the facts of each and every case.
\nIn this case, earlier a petition was filed  for  eviction  on  the  ground  of
\nrequirement  for  demolition  and  reconstruction  and  at  the time there was
\narrears of rent for two months.  Thereafter, the tenant had sent rent by money
\norder for four months.  There was refusal to receive the rent.  Even after the
\nfiling of the petition, he had not paid the rent.    This  conduct  cannot  be
\nignored.   The totality of the circumstances would lead to the conclusion that
\ndefault in payment of rent was wilful.  The court is unable to hold contra  on
\nthe facts  of  this  case.   It is also unable to subscribe to the theory that
\nonce rent was refused by the landlord, for all time to come,  the  tenant  can
\nremain  idle  and  keep  quiet  without payment of rent and still contend that
\nthere was no wilful default in payment of rent.”\n<\/p>\n
        13.  In the fifth judgment cited above it has been held:\n<\/p>\n
“When once the petitioner is under the threat of eviction  of  the  ground  of
\nwilful  default,  the first and foremost duty cast upon him is to pay the rent
\nor at least ought to have sought the permission of the Court  to  deposit  the
\nrent to   show   his   bona  fide.    Otherwise,  the  subsequent  conduct  in
\nnon-depositing or non-paying the rent till date can be  taken  note  of  which
\nwould establish the deliberate wilful default on the part of the petitioner.”\n<\/p>\n
        14.  In the sixth judgment cited above it has been held:\n<\/p>\n
“Eviction  of  tenant  –  Tenant  committing  wilful default not only prior to
\neviction petition but also during pendency of eviction  petition  till  appeal
\nwas  preferred – Tenant committed wilful default in payment of rent even after
\nadjustment of alleged deposit of advance available with landlord – Eviction of
\ntenant on  ground  of  wilful  default  does  not  call  for  interference  in
\nRevision.”\n<\/p>\n
        15.   Citing the above judgments the learned counsel would exhort that
\nit is a case wherein the subsequent conduct is relevant which would  establish
\nthat  it  is  a clear case of wilful default; that the tenant has not followed
\nSection 8(2), Section 8(3) and 8(4), but jumps to Section 8(5) which he is not
\nentitled to.  On such arguments the learned counsel would pray to  allow  both
\nthe Civil Revision Petitions setting aside the orders of the Courts below.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   In  reply,  the  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of the
\nrespondent would in his crisp arguments submit that there is a  delay  in  the
\npayment  of  the  rent  but the said delay is neither wilful nor wanton on the
\npart of the respondent\/tenant.  The learned counsel would point out  from  the
\nmaterials  made available on record that the rents when paid were not received
\nby the landlord under some pretext or other and hence the tenant was left with
\nno choice but to file the  R.C.O.P.    No.9  of  1990  and  deposit  the  rent
\ninitially a  sum  of  Rs.6,300\/-.   At this juncture the learned counsel would
\ncomment on the judgment reported in  1999(3)  Law  Weekly  284  cited  by  the
\npetitioner  and  would  submit  that  it  is  no  longer  a good law and would
\nultimately pray to dismiss both the Civil Revision Petitions with costs.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  In consideration of the  facts  pleaded,  having  regard  to  the
\nmaterials  placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both what
\ncould be assessed  is  that  the  petitioners  who  are  the  L.Rs.    of  one
\nA.G.Krishnamurthy  who  is  now  deceased are the landlords of the premises in
\nquestion pertaining to which the respondent admittedly a tenant on a  rent  of
\nRs.300\/- per  month.    It is the case of the respondent that the landlord was
\nprompt in receiving of the monthly rent up to July 1998 issuing  receipts  for
\nthe  same  but  thereafter he refused to receive the rent with ulterior motive
\nand therefore, the respondent herein  sent  a  notice  along  with  a  sum  of
\nRs.5000\/-  by  cheque  which  has  been returned by the landlord and therefore
\ntenant would come forward to say that there was no wilful default  in  payment
\nof  rent  since  the act of the landlord refusing to receive the rents paid is
\ndeliberate and therefore, the tenant had to file R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1990 in order
\nto deposit the monthly rent in the Court deposit.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  On the part of the landlords they would come  forward  to  allege
\nthat  the  tenant  was in default from April 1988 to a sum of Rs.7,800\/-; that
\nthe  tenant  had  not  acted  in  accordance  with  the   legal   requirements
\nparticularly  as  required under Section 8(2), 8(3) and 8(4) of the Tamil Nadu
\nBuildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 without compliance  of  which  he
\ncannot all  of  a  sudden  jump  to resort to Sec.  8(5) of the said Act; that
\nmoreover they require the business premises for their own occupation.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  In order to substantiate  their  respective  contentions  in  the
\njoint  trial  held  by  the  Rent  Controller  on the part of the landlord the
\ndeceased first petitioner\/landlord would examine himself as the  sole  witness
\nbesides  marking  4  documents as Exs.P1 to P4, Ex.P1 being the counterfoil of
\nthe receipt book.  Ex.P2 dated 6.4.1988 being the signatures of the tenant  in
\nEx.P1,  Ex.P3  dated  23.5.1990  is the reply and Ex.P4 dated 16.5.1990 is the
\nlegal notice.  On the other hand on the part  of  the  tenant  he  would  also
\nexamine  one  witness  and  mark 2 documents as Exs.R1 and R2, Ex.R1 being the
\nlegal notice dated 13.4.1990,  Ex.R2  being  the  Central  Bank  cheque  dated
\n16.5.1990.   In  these materials placed on record wherein in the oral evidence
\nadduced on the part of the sole witness on either side, they  would  speak  of
\ntheir  respective cases pleaded before the Rent Controller and the documentary
\nevidence marked by both the parties are also not in  abundance  and  therefore
\nappreciation  of  this  evidence  placed on record, by the Rent Controller was
\nneither a tough job nor a time consuming affair  and  hence  easy  conclusions
\nhave been  arrived  at  by the Rent Controller.  A careful study made into the
\njudgments of the authorities below from out of the  fair  and  decretal  order
\npassed  by  the Rent Controller, it could be seen that the Rent Controller has
\nclearly traced the facts as pleaded by parties without missing any vital point
\nand framing proper point for consideration as it could be seen in paragraph  7
\nof  the fair order and again taking up the subject for his discussion, wherein
\nthe Rent Controller would find from the deposition of the landlord that he has
\nlet out the premises in  favour  of  the  tenant  who  is  the  petitioner  in
\nR.C.O.P.No.9  of  1990  15  years  back for commercial purposes but no tenancy
\nagreement got reduced into writing; that from January 1988 the tenant remitted
\nthe rent of Rs.300\/- per month, only up to March 1988 and thereafter  abruptly
\nstopped paying rent; that only till the payment of the rent he as a tenant has
\nput his  signature  in  Ex.  P1 and the last signature dated 6.4.1988 has been
\nmade in Ex.P2; that in spite of demands made  on  the  part  of  the  landlord
\nwilful default was made on the part of the tenant in the payment of rent after
\nApril  1988  by evading responsibility; that wanting to do grocery business in
\nthe premises let out in favour of the tenant the landlord would  also  express
\nhis  requirement  of the premises and would mark the notice sent to the tenant
\nas Ex.P3 and the reply sent by the tenant in his  favour  dated  16.4.1990  as
\nEx.P4 along with the cheque for a sum of Rs.6,300\/-.\n<\/p>\n
        20.   The  Rent Controller would also see from the evidence adduced by
\nthe son of the tenant on the side of the tenant volunteering to state that  he
\nwas only taking care of the business at Hosur though his father was at Madras;
\nthat  he  knew about the tenancy agreement; that in the year 1981 the rent was
\nRs.175\/- and in the year 1986 it became Rs.300\/-; that the  landlord  received
\nthe  rent at the rate of Rs.300\/- per month up to April 1988 and thereafter he
\nrefused to receive the rent for no reason assigned and hence for the  rent  of
\n21  months  they  sent  a  cheque  for Rs.6,300\/- followed by the Rent Control
\nPetition filed before the Rent Controller for deposit of the rents to be made.\n<\/p>\n
        21.  The Rent Controller having  had  his  own  discussions  on  these
\nevidences  placed  on  record including that of the documentary evidence which
\nwould also go into the vital question  whether  the  default  which  has  been
\nadmittedly  made  was  wilful  as it is required of the Act to be proved or on
\naccount of refusal by the landlord in spite of the tenant having promptly come
\nforward to pay the monthly rents and also going through the position of law on
\nthe subject discussing the legal propositions would ultimately arrived at  the
\ndecision not only to conclude that there is no wilful default made on the part
\nof  the  tenant  but  also  for  the  other requirement of the landlord of the
\nbuilding for his use and occupation the Rent Controller did not find any valid
\nreason lying or any genuineness on the part of the landlord in his  claim  and
\nwould  reject  his  contentions  on both his claims made for wilful default in
\npayment of rent by the tenant and requiring the building for his own  use  and
\noccupation would pass the decree in dismissing the R.C.O.P.No.11 of 1990 filed
\nby the landlord and allowing the R.C.O.P.No.9 of 1990 filed by the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
        22.   Aggrieved, the landlord has filed both the appeals in R.C.A.Nos.
\n2 of 1993 and 3 of 1993 as against the fair and decretal orders passed by  the
\nRent  Controller  and  Court  of  District  Munsif, Hosur before the Appellate
\nAuthority and Court of Subordinate Judge, Hosur.  The Appellate Authority also
\nhaving traced the facts and circumstances of the case as  pleaded  by  parties
\nand  having  framed  its own points for consideration and having discussed the
\nevidence placed on record before the Rent Controller would  ultimately  arrive
\nat  the conclusion not only to dismiss both the appeals but to concur with the
\ndecisions arrived at by the  Rent  Controller  as  per  his  common  fair  and
\ndecretal  orders  passed in the manner aforementioned as a result of which the
\nlandlord has come forward to file both the above Civil Revision  Petitions  on
\nsuch grounds pleaded and arguments advanced as extracted supra.\n<\/p>\n
        23.   Needless  to  mention  that  the  scope  of both the above Civil
\nRevision Petitions are limited to the  needs  of  Section  25  of  Tamil  Nadu
\nBuildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 wherein this Court has to specify
\nas  to  the  regularity  of  such  proceedings or the correctness, legality or
\nproprietary of the decision or order passed by the Appellate Authority.\n<\/p>\n
        24.  The judgments cited on the part of  the  petitioners  would  give
\nexpression  to  the  legality  of certain questions involved pertaining to the
\nsubjects dealt with by the concerned courts therein for instance in the  first
\njudgment  cited  above the duties and responsibilities of the landlord and the
\ntenant as enunciated und er Section  8(2),  8(3)  and  8(4)  of  the  Act  are
\nrequired tobe  complied.  Under Section 8(2) of the Act on refusal of the rent
\nby the landlord a notice in writing is required to be issued by the tenant  to
\nthe landlord, to specify the bank in which the rent could be deposited.  Under
\nSection  8(3)  of  the Act if the landlord specifies the bank the tenant shall
\ndeposit the rent in the bank and shall continue to deposit the rent which  may
\nsubsequently become  due.   Section 8(4) of the Act would enable the tenant in
\ncase the landlord does not specify a bank to remit the rent to the landlord by
\nMoney Order after deducting the Money Order commission and Section 8(5) of the
\nAct would enable the tenant on refusal of such Money Order by the landlord  as
\nspecified  u\/s  8(4) of the Act, to deposit the rent before the Controller and
\ncontinue to deposit the same which may subsequently become due.\n<\/p>\n
        25.  So far as the case in hand is concerned, it should  be  mentioned
\nthat  the  tenant  has not only issued the notice but also has sent the cheque
\nalong with the notice, but as it is alleged on the part of the tenant  in  the
\nvery  same  manner  that  the landlord refused to receive the rent when it was
\noffered in person, he has also refused to receive the  cheque  issued  by  the
\ntenant,  as  a result of which the tenant has resorted to file R.C.O.P.No.9 of
\n1990 for the specific purpose of depositing the monthly rents  thereafter  and
\nexcepting not to follow one more procedure that is contemplated herein that is
\nby  sending  the amount by Money Order instead of which the tenant has sent it
\nby means of a cheque along with the notice and there is no  serious  deviation
\nof  the procedures established by law which is negligible and hence it must be
\nheld that prior to arriving at the stage of  Section  8(5)  of  the  Act,  the
\ntenant  could  only  be  held to have exhausted the procedures established u\/s
\n8(2), 8(3) and 8(4) of the Act and for the landlord there is nothing  much  to
\nloiter  about  the compliance of Section 8 (2), 8(3) and 8(4) of the Act prior
\nto arriving at the decision to resort to compliance of Section 8(5) of the Act
\nand hence so far as this judgment is concerned it must be  mentioned  that  on
\nfacts  since  the  compliance of the legal provisions are found on the part of
\nthe tenant, it should only be held that this judgment cannot go to the  rescue
\nof the landlord.\n<\/p>\n
        26.   In  the  second judgment cited above it is only held that wilful
\ndefault implies a conscious or volitional  failure  to  discharge  obligations
\nlaid  down  by  law  on a tenant, which also included a supine indifference to
\nthese obligations and in deciding the element of  wilful  default,  each  case
\nwill have  to  be  judged on its own merits.  This judgment would moreover lay
\nemphasis of following the procedure prescribed u\/s 8 of the Act  in  order  to
\njudge  whether  there  has  been the element of wilful default since it is the
\nduty of the tenant to pay rent regularly as enjoined in  the  statute  without
\nexpecting any demand from the landlord in that regard and that the omission to
\navail  the  procedure  under  Section 8 of the Act would certainly entitle the
\nlandlord to seek eviction for wilful default.\n<\/p>\n
        27.  Since these requirements have been very carefully looked into  by
\nboth  the  Rent  Controller  and  the  Appellate Authority no slackness in the
\ncompliance of the requirements of law could be found regarding  the  facts  of
\nthe  case  as  it  has  been well answered while discussing the first judgment
\nabove and hence there is no  need  for  any  decision  to  be  arrived  at  in
\nadherence to the principles laid down in this judgment anew since already they
\nhave been complied with by the Courts below.\n<\/p>\n
        28.   In  the third judgment, decision has been arrived at by the said
\nCourt based on facts in the said case handled by the said  Court  particularly
\non the deposition of the tenant himself as R.W.1 from which the Court inferred
\nthat the default was wilful.  This is not the same situation that is prevalent
\nin  the  case in hand and therefore this proposition held in this case becomes
\nnot applicable to the facts of the case in hand.\n<\/p>\n
        29.  The 4th judgment which also  pertains  to  the  point  of  wilful
\ndefault,  would  point  out  that it is unable to subscribe to the theory that
\nonce rent was refused by landlord, for all the time to come,  the  tenant  can
\nremain  idle  and  keep  quiet  without payment of rent and still contend that
\nthere was no wilful default in payment of rent.  Though the  proposition  held
\nherein  is  valuable,  still,  this  is  not  the  condition that is prevalent
\nregarding the facts in the case in hand  are  concerned  and  therefore,  this
\nproposition cannot also be applied to this case.\n<\/p>\n
        30.   In  the  5th judgment cited above also it is emphasised that the
\npetitioner who is placed under the threat of  eviction  on  ground  of  wilful
\ndefault  must resort to deposit the rent through the court which the tenant in
\nthe case in hand has complied with.\n<\/p>\n
        31.  The proposition held in the last judgment that not only prior  to
\nthe  eviction  petition  but  also  during  the pendency of the same, eviction
\nshould not be there and this is not the position on the part of  the  landlord
\nin  the  case in hand and hence this judgment also becomes inapplicable to the
\nfacts of the case in hand.\n<\/p>\n
        32.  In short, both the Rent Controller and  the  Appellate  Authority
\nhave  deal  with  the  subject following the procedures established by law and
\nthere is absolutely no room to think that either the Rent  Controller  or  the
\nAppellate  Authority  has deviated from their legal norms in deciding the case
\nat their levels.  They have not only traced their facts as pleaded by parties,
\nbut also on the part of the Rent Controller  regarding  the  facts  placed  on
\nrecord  during  trial  and  appreciating the case in evidence has arrived at a
\nvalid conclusion and the Appellate Authority too, in the same  manner,  having
\ndealt  with the case to the requirements of law, has arrived at its conclusion
\nto confirm the decision of the Rent Controller and this  Court  is  unable  to
\nfind any patent error or perversity in approach so far as both the authorities
\nbelow  are concerned in dealing with the subject in hand and since there is no
\nlegal infirmity or inconsistency, or laxity or lacuna in a noteworthy  manner,
\nthe  interference of this Court sought to be made into the well considered and
\nmerited decisions rendered by the Rent Controller and the Appellate  Authority
\nas  well  is  neither necessary nor warranted in the circumstances of the case
\nand hence the following order:\n<\/p>\n
        In result,\n<\/p>\n
        (i) both the above Civil Revision Petitions do  not  merit  acceptance
\nand they are dismissed;\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) the  fair and decretal order dated 28.8.1996 made in R.C.A.  Nos.
\n3 and 2 of 1993 by the Appellate Authority  (Subordinate  Judge),  Krishnagiri
\nthereby  confirming  the  fair  and  decretal  order  dated 19.2.19 93 made in
\nR.C.O.P.Nos.11 and 9 of 1990 by the Rent Controller( District  Munsif),  Hosur
\nis hereby confirmed;\n<\/p>\n
        (iii)  however,  in  the  circumstances of the case, there shall be no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n
gr.\n<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Rent Controller (District Munsif), Hsour.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Vasanthamma vs M. Jayaramaiah on 22 April, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22\/04\/2003 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAKARAJ C.R.P.No.2772 of 1996 and C.R.P.No. 2773 of 1996 A.G.Krishnamurthy(Since dead) by his L.Rs 1. Vasanthamma 2. Badrinath 3. Sukanya .. L.Rs. of Petitioner in both the petitions -Vs- M. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-151372","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVasanthamma vs M. Jayaramaiah on 22 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vasanthamma vs M. Jayaramaiah on 22 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-03T17:15:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vasanthamma vs M. Jayaramaiah on 22 April, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-03T17:15:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003\"},\"wordCount\":4842,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003\",\"name\":\"Vasanthamma vs M. Jayaramaiah on 22 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-03T17:15:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vasanthamma vs M. Jayaramaiah on 22 April, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vasanthamma vs M. Jayaramaiah on 22 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vasanthamma vs M. Jayaramaiah on 22 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-03T17:15:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vasanthamma vs M. Jayaramaiah on 22 April, 2003","datePublished":"2003-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-03T17:15:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003"},"wordCount":4842,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003","name":"Vasanthamma vs M. Jayaramaiah on 22 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-03T17:15:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasanthamma-vs-m-jayaramaiah-on-22-april-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vasanthamma vs M. Jayaramaiah on 22 April, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151372","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=151372"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151372\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151372"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151372"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151372"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}