Heirs of Tenant Held Liable for Wilful Default in Rent; Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Order

M/s Krishna Mills Pvt. Ltd., landlord of premises at Coimbatore, leased three adjoining units totalling 15,500 sq. ft. to the late K. Subramanian for a monthly rent. A dispute arose over the rent amount, leading to the fixation of fair rent at Rs. 2,43,600 per month (later reduced to Rs. 2,37,500). Despite the Rent Controller’s 2007 order and appellate affirmation in 2008, the tenant continued to pay only the old contractual rent.

Arrears accumulated over the years, and payments were made belatedly after directions from the High Court and Supreme Court. Following the lessee’s demise, his heirs were impleaded but claimed that compliance with interim directions shielded them from eviction.

HC’s Decision: Both the Appellate Authority and the High Court found willful default and ordered eviction, leading to the present appeal.

Issue Before Court: Whether the High Court rightly affirmed eviction for willful default when rent arrears were cleared belatedly during the pendency of proceedings and without any stay of the fair rent order.

SC’s Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding concurrent findings of willful default. It held that the mere filing of an appeal or revision does not operate as a stay under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC. The lessee had continued paying the earlier rent despite the fair rent order attaining finality, showing deliberate and conscious default. The Court clarified that absence of two-month notice under the Explanation to Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, does not invalidate the eviction if the default otherwise meets the test of wilfulness laid down in Sundaram Pillai v. Pattabiraman. Payments made pursuant to “without prejudice” court directions did not waive the landlord’s rights.

Therefore, the heirs were granted six months to vacate upon filing an undertaking.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below