K. SUBRAMANIAM (DIED) THROUGH LRS K.S. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS. versus M/S KRISHNA MILLS PVT. LTD.

K. SUBRAMANIAM (DIED) THROUGH LRS K.S. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS. versus M/S KRISHNA MILLS PVT. LTD.

The High Court correctly exercised revisional jurisdiction in declining to re-appraise concurrent factual findings that the lessee and thereafter the appellants were in wilful default: fair rent had been fixed by the Rent Controller and confirmed on appeal, no stay was sought, payments were partial and belated, the absence of a two months' notice under the Explanation to s.10(2)(i) did not bar a finding of wilful default, and filing appeals without seeking stay cannot be relied upon to avoid payment obligations; accordingly eviction on the ground of wilful default was justified and the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellants (heirs of Lessee): K. Subramaniam (Died) Through LRs K.S. Balakrishnan & Ors.; Respondent (owner): M/s Krishna Mills Pvt. Ltd.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated 22.06.2021 in CRP No. 2053 of 2020
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Wilful Default, Fixation of Fair Rent, Judicial Finality, Effect of Interim Orders/without Prejudice
Rent Law Civil Procedure Property Law Administrative/revisional Jurisdiction Eviction Wilful Default Fixation of Fair Rent Judicial Finality +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K. Subramaniam (Died) Through LRs K.S. Balakrishnan & Ors.

Appellants (heirs of Lessee)

M/s Krishna Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent (owner)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order Dated 22.06.2021 in CRP No. 2053 of 2020

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was right to refuse to reverse the appellate order of eviction on the ground of wilful default
  2. 2 Whether pendency of proceedings without obtaining a stay absolves a tenant from paying fair rent fixed by court
  3. 3 Whether absence of two months’ notice under the Explanation to s.10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 precludes a finding of wilful default

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court correctly exercised revisional jurisdiction in declining to re-appraise concurrent factual findings that the lessee and thereafter the appellants were in wilful default: fair rent had been fixed by the Rent Controller and confirmed on appeal, no stay was sought, payments were partial and belated, the absence of a two months' notice under the Explanation to s.10(2)(i) did not bar a finding of wilful default, and filing appeals without seeking stay cannot be relied upon to avoid payment obligations; accordingly eviction on the ground of wilful default was justified and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Appellants granted time of six months from date of order to vacate and hand over vacant possession to M/s Krishna Mills Pvt. Ltd., subject to usual undertakings being filed within a fortnight.