1989 (9) TMI 395 - SC - Indian Laws

Tenant's Belief in Property Purchase: Not Wilful Default under Lease Control Act

Rakapalli Raja Rama Gopala Rao Versus Naragani Govinda Sehararao & Another

Rakapalli Raja Rama Gopala Rao Versus Naragani Govinda Sehararao & Another - 1989 AIR 2185, 1989 SCR Supl. (1) 115 Issues involved: Interpretation of wilful default in the context of non-payment of rent by a tenant claiming a right to purchase the property under a prior agreement.Summary:The Supreme Court considered whether a tenant's failure to pay rent due to a belief in a right to purchase the property can be deemed wilful default under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The Act allows eviction if rent is not paid, but provides an exception if the default is not wilful. The tenant, in this case, claimed he had a prior agreement to buy the property and thus did not pay rent from December 1977 to May 1978. The Court analyzed the concept of wilful default, emphasizing that it must be intentional, deliberate, and conscious. The tenant genuinely believed he had a right to purchase the property based on an oral agreement and had paid earnest money. The Court held that the tenant's failure to pay rent was not wilful but based on a bona fide belief, and therefore, the eviction decree was set aside. The Controller was directed to allow the tenant to pay the arrears within a specified time.In conclusion, the Court found that the tenant's failure to pay rent was not wilful but based on a genuine belief in his right to purchase the property, as supported by an oral agreement and earnest money payment. The Court set aside the eviction decree and directed the Controller to give the tenant an opportunity to pay the arrears within a specified time.