Wilful default and additional accommodation eviction grounds fail where statutory attachment restrains rent payment and pleadings are incomplete.

A subsisting prohibitory order and notice under income-tax recovery provisions can operate like an attachment of debt, so a tenant who reasonably believes rent cannot be paid to the landlord does not commit wilful default under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Non-payment in such circumstances is treated as resulting from statutory compulsion, not conscious disregard of the rent obligation. A separate eviction ground based on additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) cannot be sustained without amended pleadings and the mandatory finding on comparative hardship required by the proviso. The additional ground was therefore held unsustainable on the record described.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prohibitory order and notice issued by the Tax Recovery Officer under the Income-tax Act prevented the tenant from paying rent to the landlord so that non-payment could not amount to wilful default under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960; (ii) whether the landlord could be permitted to sustain eviction on the additional ground of requirement of additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) without amendment of pleadings and without recording the finding required by the proviso to that clause.

Issue (i): Whether the prohibitory order and notice issued by the Tax Recovery Officer under the Income-tax Act prevented the tenant from paying rent to the landlord so that non-payment could not amount to wilful default under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

Analysis: A prohibitory order under the income-tax recovery provisions operates like an attachment of debt and, when a notice under Section 226(3) is in force, payment to the Tax Recovery Officer discharges the tenant's liability to the landlord to the extent of the amount paid. The Court treated the notice as having the character of a garnishee order and held that the tenant had a reasonable basis to believe that rent could not be paid to the landlord while the attachment remained effective. In those circumstances, non-payment during the relevant period was caused by statutory compulsion rather than deliberate or conscious disregard of the obligation to pay rent. Accordingly, the default was not wilful for the purposes of Section 10(2)(i).

Conclusion: The tenant's non-payment of rent during the period covered by the prohibitory order and notice did not amount to wilful default.

Issue (ii): Whether the landlord could be permitted to sustain eviction on the additional ground of requirement of additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) without amendment of pleadings and without recording the finding required by the proviso to that clause.

Analysis: The Court distinguished between a permissible additional ground based on existing pleadings and material on record, and a new case requiring amendment of pleadings and opportunity to meet the new factual foundation. The ground under Section 10(3)(c) required proof of distinct facts, including that the landlord occupied only part of the building, that the tenant occupied the remaining part, and that comparative hardship favoured the landlord. As the pleadings were not amended and no finding was recorded on the proviso relating to hardship, the additional ground could not be sustained. The High Court's course in allowing the additional ground in revision without those requirements being satisfied was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The additional ground under Section 10(3)(c) could not validly support the eviction order.

Final Conclusion: The order of the High Court was set aside and the matter stood concluded in accordance with the Appellate Authority's order, with liberty to the landlord to pursue eviction on the additional-accommodation ground if otherwise permissible in law.

Ratio Decidendi: A tenant does not commit wilful default when non-payment of rent is attributable to a subsisting statutory attachment or notice that reasonably restrains payment to the landlord, and a new eviction ground requiring distinct factual foundations cannot be sustained without proper pleadings and the mandatory statutory finding.

---