Supreme Court Remands Eviction Case for Fresh Consideration: V. Govindasamy vs. T.V.R.C. Kannan (2018)

Date of the Judgment: November 13, 2018
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and Hemant Gupta, J.
Can a case be sent back to the lower court for a fresh hearing even after an order has been passed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent case, remanding the matter back to the Rent Controller for a fresh consideration on merits. The Court’s decision came after the appellant cleared all pending rent arrears. This case highlights the importance of considering the merits of an eviction petition even after a conditional order has been passed. The bench comprised of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Hemant Gupta.

Case Background

The case originated from a rent control petition filed under Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. The Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli, had passed an order under Section 11(4) of the same Act. The appellant, V. Govindasamy, was the tenant, and the respondent, T.V.R.C. Kannan (now deceased, represented by legal representatives), was the landlord. The core issue revolved around the eviction of the tenant from the premises.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Rent Controller at Tiruchirapalli initially passed an order under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. The matter was then appealed to the Appellate Court, and subsequently to the High Court. The Supreme Court did not specify the reasons for the decisions of the lower courts or the High Court. The Supreme Court, after hearing the submissions, decided to set aside the orders of the lower courts and the High Court, and remitted the case back to the Rent Controller for a fresh consideration on merits.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the following sections of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960:

• ✓ Section 10(2): This section deals with the grounds for eviction of a tenant. The specific grounds for eviction were not detailed in the judgment.
• ✓ Section 11(4): This section allows the Rent Controller to pass a conditional order for eviction if the tenant fails to pay rent arrears. The judgment notes that the Rent Controller had passed an order under this section.

The Supreme Court has not provided the text of the provisions in the judgment.

Arguments

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all arrears of rent had been cleared up to date. The appellant argued that since the impugned order was passed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, the main petition filed under Section 10(2) of the Act for eviction should be considered on its merits. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan assisted the court as Amicus Curiae. The court did not specify the arguments made by the Amicus Curiae.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was straightforward and focused on the fact that since the arrears were cleared, the eviction petition should be decided on merits rather than on the basis of non-payment of rent.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any issues. However, the core issue can be inferred as:

• ✓ Whether the Rent Controller should consider the eviction petition on merits after the tenant has cleared all rent arrears, even if an order was previously passed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any case laws or books. However, the court considered the following legal provisions:

• ✓ Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960: This section deals with the grounds for eviction of a tenant.
• ✓ Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960: This section allows the Rent Controller to pass a conditional order for eviction if the tenant fails to pay rent arrears.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellant had cleared all rent arrears. The court emphasized that since the order was passed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, which is conditional upon non-payment of rent, the main eviction petition under Section 10(2) should be considered on its merits. The court’s reasoning indicates a focus on ensuring a fair hearing where all aspects of the case, not just the non-payment of rent, are taken into account.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the premise that a conditional order under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 should not preclude a hearing on the merits of the eviction petition under Section 10(2) when the condition (non-payment of rent) is no longer applicable. The court did not delve into the merits of the eviction petition itself, but rather focused on the procedural aspect of ensuring that the main petition is heard fairly.

The Supreme Court observed that, “Since the impugned order is passed under Section 11(4), we are of the view that the main petition filed under Section 10(2) of the Act for eviction has to be considered on merits.”

The court further stated, “Therefore, without expressing any opinion on various submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, who assisted us as Amicus Curiae, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli, the Appellate Court and the High Court and remit the Rent Control Petition to the Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli for consideration on merits.”

The Court also directed, “Since there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents, we direct the Rent Controller to issue fresh notice to the parties and being a matter of 1991, the petition itself may be disposed of expeditiously and in any case, within three months from the date of first posting.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ If a tenant clears all rent arrears, the main eviction petition should be considered on its merits, even if a conditional order was previously passed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960.
• ✓ Lower courts should not dismiss eviction petitions solely based on non-payment of rent if the arrears have been cleared.
• ✓ The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a fair hearing on the merits of an eviction petition.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli to:

• ✓ Issue fresh notice to the parties.
• ✓ Dispose of the petition expeditiously, within three months from the date of first posting.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an order under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, which is conditional on non-payment of rent, should not prevent a hearing on the merits of the eviction petition under Section 10(2) once the arrears are cleared. This decision reinforces the principle that all aspects of an eviction case should be considered fairly. This case clarifies that even if a conditional order for eviction is passed, the main eviction petition must be decided on its merits if the condition is removed.

Conclusion

In the case of V. Govindasamy vs. T.V.R.C. Kannan, the Supreme Court remanded the eviction case back to the Rent Controller, Tiruchirapalli, for a fresh hearing on merits. This decision was made after the appellant cleared all pending rent arrears, emphasizing that the main eviction petition under Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 should be considered fairly. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that the eviction petition is decided based on its merits and not just on the non-payment of rent.