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