Rent Control-Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, sec. 10(2)(1)-Proviso and Explanation-Scope of-Wilful default-Meaning of.

Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short, the Tamil Nadu Act) deals with the eviction of tenants and postulates that a tenant shall not be evicted whether in acquisition of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of s.10 or ss. 14-16. Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Act provides for the eviction of a tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. It lays down that where the Controller is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent within 15 days after the expiry of the time fixed in the Agreement of tenancy or in the absence of any such Agreement, by the last date of the month next following that for which the rent is payable, he (tenant) undoubtedly commits a default The proviso to sub-s.2 provides that in any case falling in clause (i), if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant's default to pay or tender rent was not wilful, he may, notwithstanding anything contained in s. 11, give the tenant a reasonable time, not exceeding 15 days to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord upto the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or tender the application shall be rejected. The Explanation which was added by Act 23 of 1973 to the said proviso stipulates that for the purpose of sub-s-2 of s 10, default to pay or tender rent shall be construed as wilful, if the default by the tenant in the payment or tender of rent continues after the issue of two months notice by the landlord claiming the rent.

In Civil Appeals Nos. 1178 of 1984, 1992 of 1982, 2246 of 1982 and 1659 of 1982, the respondents-landlords issued notices to the appellants-tenants demanding the amount of rent in arrears and thereafter filed eviction petitions against the appellants-tenants, inter alia, on the ground of "wilful default". All the appellants-tenants complied with the notices issued by their respective landlords except the appellant-tenant in Civil Appeal No. 1659 of 1982 where he made part payment only. However in Civil Appeal 3668 of 1982 and 4012 of 1982 the respondents-landlords had filed eviction petitions against the appellants- tenants without issuing such notices before filing of eviction petitions. In all the appeals, the Madras High Court passed and/or confirmed, as the case may be, the orders of eviction holding that the ground of 'wilful' default mentioned in section 10(2)(i) had been proved against the tenants. Hence these appeals by special leave. The common question of law involved in these appeals was as to what is the interpretation of the term "wilful default" in the Explanation to the Proviso of sub-s.2 of s. 10 of the Tamil Nadu Act.

Counsel for the appellants-tenants contended (i) that despite the explanation it is open to the court on an appraisement of the circumstances of each case to determine whether or not the default was wilful and in doing so it can- not be guided wholly and solely by the Explanation which is merely clarificatory in nature and (ii) that mere non-payment of arrears of rent after issue of two months' notice cannot in all circumstances automatically amount to a wilful default if the non-payment does not fulfil the various ingredients of the term "wilful default". On the other hand it was argued by counsel for the respondents- landlords (i) that the very purpose of the Explanation is to bring about uniformity in court decisions by laying down a conclusive yardstick in the shape of the Explanation and once it is proved that after issue of two months' notice if the tenant does not pay the arrears within the stipulated period of two months, he is liable to be ejected straightaway.