1985 (1) TMI 306 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court defines wilful default as intentional deliberate non-payment with full knowledge of consequences

S. SUNDARAM PILLAI Versus VR. PATTABIRAMAN

The SC interpreted 'wilful default' under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, holding that default must be intentional, ... Interpretation of the term 'wilful default' appearing in the proviso to section 10 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Buil dings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 Held that:- A consensus of the meaning of the words 'wilful default' appears to indicate that default in order to be wilful must be intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious, with full knowledge of legal consequences flowing therefrom. Taking for instance a case where a tenant commits default after default despite oral demands or reminders and fails to pay the rent without any just or lawful cause, it cannot be said that he is not guilty of wilful default because such a course of conduct manifestly amounts to wilful default as contemplated either by the Act or by other Acts referred to above. In civil appeal No. 1178 of 1984, it would appear that though the tenant had committed a default but he had paid the entire rent well before the filing of the suit by the landlord. In fact, the suit for eviction was filed by the landlord not on the ground of pending arrears but to penalise the tenant for having defaulted in the past. Such a suit cannot be entertained because once the entire dues are paid to the landlord the cause of action for filing of a suit completely vanishes. Hence, the suit arising out of civil appeal No. 1978 of 1984 must be dismissed as being not maintainable and the order of ejectment passed by the High Court is hereby set aside. In civil appeal No. 6211 of 1983, having regard to the tests and the criteria laid down by us there can be no doubt that wilful default in the payment of arrears to the tune of ₹ 900 has been proved and as there is nothing to show that the arrears were not paid or withheld due to circumstances beyond the control of the tenant, the order of eviction passed by the High Court is confirmed, and the appeal is allowed. In civil appeal No. 1992 of 1982 the arrears having been paid through the Bank Draft, the question of eviction of the tenant did not arise nor did the question of default come into the picture merely because the landlord wanted to harass him by filing an eviction petition. The High Court was, therefore, clearly in error in passing the decree of ejectment against the tenant. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court evicting the tenant. In civil appeal No. 1659 of 1982, as it was clearly a case of wilful default on the part of the tenant we affirm the order of the High Court evicting the tenant and dismiss the appeal. In civil appeal No. 3668 of 1982, some dispute arose between the parties as to whether the rent was to be deposited in Bank, resulting in the filing of the present suit for eviction on 1.4.80 in the court of the Rent Controller by the landlord after verifying from the Bank that the tenant had not deposited the rent for the months of January and February 1980. This default, in our opinion, was undoubtedly deliberate, conscious and without any reasonable or rational basis and the High Court was perfectly right in holding that the tenant A was guilty of wilful default and passing a decree for ejectments. As no notice was given by the landlord, Explanation to proviso to s. 10 (2) of the Act does not apply at all. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. In civil appeal No. 2246 of 1982 the High Court in revision upheld the order of eviction on the ground that there was no satisfactory explanation for non- payment of rent for the period January to June 1976 was clearly in error because the tenant had already deposited the entire dues including the rent from January to June, on 17.7.76. Thus, the question of wilful default could not arise nor could it be said that the default was either conscious or deliberate or international. Moreover, in view of the Explanation since the tenant had paid the amount within the time of the notice, there could be no question of wilful default. This fact seems to have been completely overlooked by the High Court. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court directing eviction of the tenant. In civil appeal No. 4012 of 1982, the tenant occupied the premises at a monthly rent of ₹ 325. It appears that the tenant defaulted in payment of tent from June 1976 onwards and after repeated demands, only a sum Or ₹ 1000 was paid by him on 1.4 77. leaving a substantial balance of arrears unpaid. This was, therefore, a clear case of wilful default where the tenant did not pay the rent deliberately, consciously and intentionally. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court in these appeals are:(a) What is the proper interpretation of the term 'wilful default' as used in the proviso to section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 ('the Act') and its Explanation added by Act No. 23 of 1973Rs.(b) What is the scope and effect of the proviso and the Explanation to section 10(2) of the Act in determining whether a tenant's default in payment of rent is wilfulRs.(c) Whether the issuance of a two months' notice by the landlord to the tenant claiming arrears of rent and the tenant's failure to pay within that period conclusively establishes wilful defaultRs.(d) Whether the courts have discretion to examine the circumstances of each case to determine wilfulness of default despite the ExplanationRs.(e) The legal consequences of payment of arrears after notice but before filing of eviction suit, and whether such payment extinguishes the cause of action.(f) The application of the legal principles on wilful default to the facts of the various appeals before the Court.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS(a) Interpretation of 'Wilful Default' under the Act and ExplanationThe Court examined the meaning of 'wilful default' by reference to authoritative legal dictionaries and prior case law. 'Wilful' connotes deliberate, intentional, conscious conduct, done with knowledge of the legal consequences. 'Default' means failure or omission to perform a legal duty, here non-payment of rent.Thus, 'wilful default' means a deliberate, calculated, and conscious failure to pay rent, not an accidental or inadvertent omission. The Court emphasized that a tenant who repeatedly defaults without lawful cause, despite reminders, manifests wilful default.(b) Nature and Scope of the Proviso to Section 10(2)The proviso to section 10(2) provides that if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant's default was not wilful, he may grant a reasonable time (not exceeding 15 days) to pay the rent, and on payment the eviction application shall be rejected. The Court reviewed principles of statutory interpretation relating to provisos, finding that a proviso generally qualifies or excepts something from the main enactment and cannot nullify the main object of the enactment.The Court noted that the proviso here is intended to protect tenants from eviction if their default is not wilful, allowing a limited opportunity to cure the default.(c) Effect and Interpretation of the Explanation to the ProvisoThe Explanation added by Act No. 23 of 1973 states that default shall be construed as wilful if it continues after the issue of two months' notice by the landlord claiming the rent. The Court analyzed the legal effect of an Explanation, concluding that it is clarificatory and does not enlarge or restrict the scope of the main provision but elucidates its meaning.Two competing interpretations were considered:One view (endorsed by the majority) holds that issuance of a two months' notice followed by non-payment conclusively establishes wilful default, removing discretion from the Controller to examine wilfulness in such cases, except where the tenant shows compelling cause beyond his control.The other view (expressed in dissent) is that the Explanation defines wilful default exclusively, so that only default continuing after two months' notice is wilful default; other defaults cannot be wilful for the purpose of eviction under section 10(2).The majority found the first interpretation preferable to avoid anomalies and to give effect to the legislative intent to bring uniformity and certainty in eviction proceedings.(d) Discretion of Courts and Controllers in Determining WilfulnessThe Court held that where no two months' notice is given, the Controller or court retains discretion to determine wilfulness based on the tenant's conduct and circumstances, applying the tests of deliberateness, intention, and consciousness of default.However, where the landlord issues the two months' notice and the tenant fails to pay within the stipulated period, wilful default is presumed, and the Controller has no discretion to grant further time unless the tenant proves inability to pay due to compelling reasons beyond his control.This interpretation balances the interests of landlords and tenants, preventing tenants from abusing the system by repeated defaults without consequence, while safeguarding tenants genuinely unable to pay.(e) Legal Effect of Payment of Arrears Before Filing SuitThe Court consistently held that if the tenant pays the entire arrears before the filing of the eviction suit, the cause of action for eviction on the ground of default ceases to exist, and the suit is not maintainable. The landlord cannot file a suit to penalize past defaults once dues are cleared.In cases where the tenant tendered payment within the notice period or shortly after default, and the landlord accepted or refused payment without justification, eviction was not warranted.(f) Application of Law to Facts of the AppealsThe Court applied the above principles to the facts of the various appeals:In cases where tenants failed to pay rent despite two months' notice and no compelling excuse was shown, eviction orders were upheld as wilful default was established.Where tenants paid arrears within the notice period or before filing of suit, eviction orders were set aside as no wilful default existed.Where landlords acted unfairly, e.g., by not encashing bank drafts tendered by tenants within notice periods, eviction was denied.Where tenants' claims of payment to third parties (e.g., Income Tax Department) were unproved, defaults were held wilful.Where tenants made partial payments after notice but failed to pay full arrears without satisfactory explanation, eviction was upheld.(g) Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Court carefully considered the tenants' argument that the Explanation is clarificatory and does not preclude courts from examining wilfulness in all cases. The Court acknowledged the merit but found that a strict interpretation of the Explanation was necessary to maintain uniformity and prevent judicial inconsistencies.The landlords' argument that the Explanation provides a conclusive test for wilful default after two months' notice was accepted, subject to the tenant's ability to prove exceptional circumstances.The dissenting opinion emphasized a strict and exclusive interpretation of the Explanation, limiting wilful default only to cases of non-payment after two months' notice, rejecting the broader tests of wilfulness applied by the majority.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'Wilful default' means a deliberate, intentional, calculated and conscious failure to pay rent, knowing full well the legal consequences thereof. Mere non-payment is not sufficient; the default must be wilful in the sense of conscious violation or reckless indifference.The proviso to section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, protects tenants from eviction if the default is not wilful, allowing a reasonable time (not exceeding 15 days) to pay arrears.The Explanation added by Act No. 23 of 1973 clarifies that default continuing after the issue of two months' notice by the landlord shall be construed as wilful default. This serves as a conclusive proof of wilfulness, removing discretion from the Controller to examine wilfulness in such cases, except where the tenant proves inability to pay due to compelling reasons beyond control.The Court held:'(1) Where no notice, as required by the Explanation, is given to the tenant, the Controller... has the undoubted discretion to examine the question as to whether or not the default committed by the tenant is wilful... and if within that time the tenant pays the rent, the application for ejectment would have to be rejected.''(2) If the landlord chooses to give two months' notice to the tenant to clear up the dues and the tenant does not pay the dues within the stipulated time of the notice then the Controller would have no discretion to decide the question of wilful default because such a conduct of the tenant would itself be presumed to be wilful default unless he shows that he was prevented by sufficient cause or circumstances beyond his control in honouring the notice sent by the landlord.'The Court further held that once the tenant pays the entire arrears before the filing of the eviction suit, the cause of action ceases and the suit is not maintainable.The Court underscored that the Explanation is clarificatory and must be read in harmony with the proviso, not to nullify or render it nugatory.The dissenting judgment held that the Explanation provides an exclusive definition of wilful default, limiting it only to cases where default continues after two months' notice, and that courts should not apply broader tests of wilfulness beyond this statutory definition.