S. THANGAPPAN versus P. PADMAVATHY

S. THANGAPPAN versus P. PADMAVATHY

Denial of respondent's title by tenant was not bona fide, as tenant accepted respondent as landlord at commencement of tenancy and continued paying rent; non-payment of rent constituted wilful default under the Act; eviction and requirement for demolition and reconstruction upheld.

Parties
Appellant: S. Thangappan; Respondent: P. Padmavathy; Intervenor: Arulmigu Athikesava Perumal Peyalwar Devasthanam
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Madras High Court Orders in Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 3476 of 1985 and 830 of 1997
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Wilful Default, Estoppel of Tenant, Landlord Definition, Demolition and Reconstruction, Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
Rent and Eviction Property Law Wilful Default Estoppel of Tenant Landlord Definition Demolition and Reconstruction Tamil Nadu Buildings (lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. Thangappan

Appellant

P. Padmavathy

Respondent

Arulmigu Athikesava Perumal Peyalwar Devasthanam

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From Madras High Court Orders in Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 3476 of 1985 and 830 of 1997

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether denial of landlord's title by tenant was bona fide or mala fide under Section 116 of Evidence Act
  2. 2 Whether non-payment of rent amounted to wilful default under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was entitled to eviction for default and for demolition and reconstruction under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Denial of respondent's title by tenant was not bona fide, as tenant accepted respondent as landlord at commencement of tenancy and continued paying rent; non-payment of rent constituted wilful default under the Act; eviction and requirement for demolition and reconstruction upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant granted six months from date of judgment to vacate premises, subject to filing usual undertaking within four weeks before trial court for peaceful possession without creation of third party rights.
  • Costs on the parties.