J. JERMONS versus ALIAMMAL AND ORS.

J. JERMONS versus ALIAMMAL AND ORS.

Non-payment of rent by the tenant, caused by a prohibitory order and notice under the Income Tax Act, is not 'wilful default' under S.10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Payment made to the Tax Recovery Officer in response to statutory notice fully discharges the tenant’s obligation to the landlord; thus, eviction cannot be ordered on such ground.

Parties
Appellant/tenant: J. Jermons; Respondents/landlords: Aliammal and Others; Pro Forma Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order in CRP Nos. 1582 of 1993, 1705 of 1993 and CMP No. 13064 of 1996
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court and Appellate Authority's orders set aside; Rent Controller's order restored.
Legal Topics
Wilful Default in Rent Payment, Additional Grounds in Revision, Meaning of Debt Under Income Tax Act, Eviction for Bona Fide Requirement, Interpretation of S.10(2)(i), S.10(3)(a), (c) Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act, Effects of Income Tax Recovery Orders on Rent Payment, Remand and Amendment of Pleadings
Rent Control Practice and Procedure Wilful Default in Rent Payment Additional Grounds in Revision Meaning of Debt Under Income Tax Act Eviction for Bona Fide Requirement Interpretation of S.10(2)(i), S.10(3)(a),(c) Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act Effects of Income Tax Recovery Orders on Rent Payment +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. Jermons

Appellant/tenant

Aliammal and Others

Respondents/landlords

Union of India

Pro Forma Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order in CRP Nos. 1582 of 1993, 1705 of 1993 and CMP No. 13064 of 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-payment of rent due to prohibitory order of Tax Recovery Officer amounts to 'wilful default'.
  2. 2 Whether High Court was right in allowing eviction under S.10(3)(c) without findings regarding comparative hardship.
  3. 3 Whether raising additional grounds in revision for eviction required amendment of pleadings.

Ratio Decidendi

Non-payment of rent by the tenant, caused by a prohibitory order and notice under the Income Tax Act, is not 'wilful default' under S.10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Payment made to the Tax Recovery Officer in response to statutory notice fully discharges the tenant’s obligation to the landlord; thus, eviction cannot be ordered on such ground.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court and Appellate Authority's orders set aside; Rent Controller's order restored.

Orders

  • Order of eviction under S.10(3)(c) set aside due to lack of finding on comparative hardship.
  • Judgment does not preclude landlords from seeking eviction under S.10(3)(c), if otherwise permissible in law.