Supreme Court Upholds Eviction for Late Rent Payment Under Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Act: K. Chinnammal vs. L.R. Eknath (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 11, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 453

Judges: Krishna Murari, J. and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.

Can a tenant be evicted for not paying rent within a court-ordered deadline, even if the rent is paid later? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. This case explores the balance between protecting tenants and ensuring landlords receive their due payments. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, with the opinion authored by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.

Case Background

The dispute began when the respondent, L.R. Eknath, filed a case in the Revenue Court, Madurai, on December 8, 2014, seeking the eviction of the appellants, the legal heirs of K. Chinnammal. The claim was based on the appellants’ failure to pay lease rent for the years 2009 to 2014 (Fasli 1419 to 1424). The rent was set at 10½ bags of paddy per year, each weighing 65 kg.

On February 4, 2019, the Revenue Court ordered the appellants to pay 31½ bags of paddy, or its equivalent value, for Fasli years 1421, 1423, and 1424. This payment was to be made within two months of receiving the order. The appellants received the order on October 10, 2020. They sent a legal notice on November 6, 2020, expressing their willingness to pay and requesting the respondent to collect the rent with all legal heirs of the original lessor. The respondent replied on November 11, 2020, asking the appellants to bring all five legal heirs of the original lessor to collect the rent. The appellants deposited the rent on February 18, 2021, and filed a memo on February 22, 2021, in the Revenue Court.

Subsequently, the respondent filed another application seeking eviction on the grounds that the rent was not paid within the two-month deadline. The Revenue Court allowed this eviction application on December 3, 2021. The appellants challenged this order in the High Court, which was dismissed on April 25, 2022. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent no.1 initially filed T.C.T.P. No. 5 of 2015 before the Revenue Court, Madurai, seeking eviction of the appellants for not paying the lease rent for Fasli 1419 to Fasli 1424. The Revenue Court on 04.02.2019 ordered the appellants to pay lease rent of 31½ bags of paddy or the amount equivalent to it within two months from the receipt of the order, failing which eviction proceedings would be initiated. The appellants failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated time and the respondent no.1 filed I.A. No. 15 of 2021 seeking eviction of the appellants. The Revenue Court allowed the eviction application on 03.12.2021. The appellants challenged the order of eviction by way of Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No. 271 of 2022 at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Revenue Court. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Specifically, Sections 3 and 4 of the Act are central to the dispute.

Section 3 of the Act, titled “Landlords not to evict cultivating tenants,” generally protects tenants from eviction. However, it includes exceptions where tenants can be evicted. The relevant portion states:


“3. Landlords not to evict cultivating tenants (1)Subject to the next succeeding sub-sections, no cultivating tenant shall be evicted from his holding or any part thereof, by or at the instance of his landlord, whether in execution of a decree or order of a Court or otherwise. (2)Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, sub-section (1) shall not apply to a cultivating tenant- (a) who, in the areas where the Tanjore Tenants and Pannaiyal Protection Act, 1952 (Tamil Nadu Act XIV of 1952), was in force immediately before the dale of coming into force of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection (Amendment) Act, 1956, if in arrear at the commencement of this Act, with respect to the rent payable to the landlord does not pay such rent within six weeks after such commencement or who in respect of rent payable to the landlord after the commencement of this Act, does not pay such rent within a month after such rent becomes due; or (aa) who, in the other areas of the State of Tamil Nadu, if in arrear at the commencement of this Act, with respect to the rent payable to the landlord and accrued due subsequent to the 31st March, 1954, does not pay such rent within a month alter such commencement, or who in respect of rent payable to the landlord after such commencement, does not pay such rent within a month after such rent becomes due; or] (b) who has done any act or has been guilty of any negligence which is destructive of, or injurious to, the land or any crop thereon or has altogether ceased to cultivate the land; or (c) who has used the land for any purpose not being an agricultural or horticultural purpose; or (d) who has willfully denied the title of the landlord to the land.”

Section 4 of the Act, titled “Right to restoration of possession,” outlines the conditions under which a tenant can be restored to possession of the land.


“4. Right to restoration of possession. (1) Every cultivating tenant who was in possession of any land on the 1st December 1953 and who is not in possession thereof at the commencement of this Act shall, on application to the Revenue’ Divisional Officer, be entitled to be restored to such possession on the same terms as those applicable to the possession of the land on the 1st December 1953.”

Arguments

Submissions by the Appellants:

• The appellants argued that they received the order dated 04.02.2019 on 10.10.2020 and sent a legal notice on 06.11.2020, within two months, expressing their willingness to pay the rent and asking the respondent to collect it with all legal heirs of the original lessor.
• They contended that the respondent failed to accept the rent, and they deposited it in court on 18.02.2021.
• They submitted that Section 3 of the Act does not provide for eviction after the deposit of the due amount and that the delay was not inordinate.
• They argued that Section 3 of the Act does not specify delay in deposit of rent as a ground for eviction.
• They argued that the delay in payment was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and should be condoned.
• They also relied on Section 4 of the Act, which provides for restoration of possession upon payment of arrears.

Submissions by the Respondent No. 1:

• The respondent argued that the appellants received the order on 10.10.2020 and were required to comply by 09.12.2020, which they failed to do.
• The respondent stated that the legal notice sent by the appellants was a delaying tactic and that the appellants did not take any steps to pay the rent.
• The respondent submitted that the appellants deposited only Rs. 28,563/- instead of the total accrued amount of Rs. 37,820/-, and the remaining amount has not been deposited.
• The respondent highlighted that the appellants suppressed the fact that execution proceedings had been initiated and possession of the land had been taken on 13.10.2022.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

✓ Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the eviction order passed by the Revenue Court, given the circumstances of the case and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the eviction order. The Court held that the appellants failed to comply with the Revenue Court’s order to pay the rent within two months. The subsequent deposit of rent did not rectify the default.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• S N Sundalaimuthu Chettiar v Palaniyandavan, AIR 1966 SC 469* – The Court held that this case was not applicable as it dealt with the definition of ‘cultivating tenant’ and not with eviction for delayed payment of rent.
• G Ponniah Thevar v Nellayam Perumal Pillai, (1977) 1 SCC 500* – The Court found this case not relevant as it concerned the protection of tenants inducted by a life estate holder and also recognized that Section 3(2) allows eviction for default in payment of rent.
• Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, Order dated 23.03.2020 [(2020) 19 SCC 10]* and Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In Re, (2022) 2 SCC 117* – The Court held that these orders related to the extension of limitation for filing cases and not for compliance of court orders.
• S Kasi v State, (2021) 12 SCC 1* – The Court used this case to clarify that the extension of limitation was for the benefit of litigants who had to take remedy in law and not for extending time to comply with court orders.
• Estralla Rubber v Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97* and Garment Craft v Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181* – The Court referred to these cases to reiterate the limited scope of the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized several points in its reasoning:

• The appellants did not comply with the order to pay within two months.
• Sending a legal notice does not fulfill the obligation to pay.
• The appellants were not significantly affected by the pandemic.
• The Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, protects tenants but also allows for eviction in cases of non-payment of rent.
• The court must ensure that the limited grounds for eviction are not frustrated by granting undue indulgence to the tenant.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, such as the non-compliance with the order and the timing of the payment, than by the legal provisions.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the arguments of the appellants that the delay in payment was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that the legal notice sent by them showed their willingness to pay. However, the Court rejected these arguments and held that the appellants had failed to comply with the order of the Revenue Court to pay the rent within two months. The Court also held that the subsequent deposit of rent did not rectify the default and that the High Court had correctly exercised its power under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court also considered the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, and held that the Act protects tenants but also allows for eviction in cases of non-payment of rent. The Court emphasized that it must ensure that the limited grounds for eviction are not frustrated by granting undue indulgence to the tenant.

The Court’s decision was based on the fact that the appellants failed to comply with the order of the Revenue Court to pay the rent within two months, and that the subsequent deposit of rent did not rectify the default. The Court also held that the High Court had correctly exercised its power under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah. There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Tenants must strictly adhere to court-ordered deadlines for rent payments.
• Sending a legal notice expressing willingness to pay does not fulfill the obligation to pay.
• The Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955, protects tenants but also allows for eviction for non-payment of rent within the stipulated time.
• The COVID-19 pandemic cannot be used as a blanket excuse for non-compliance with court orders, especially when the party has shown the capacity to perform their obligations.
• Courts will not grant undue indulgence to tenants if it frustrates the limited grounds for eviction as specified in the Act.

Directions

The Supreme Court vacated the interim order dated 31.10.2022.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a tenant’s failure to pay rent within the stipulated time as ordered by the court, even if the rent is deposited later, is a valid ground for eviction under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. This case clarifies that the protection provided to tenants under the Act is not absolute and that tenants must strictly comply with court orders to avoid eviction. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the eviction order. The Court emphasized that tenants must comply with court orders and that late payment of rent, even if deposited later, is a valid ground for eviction under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955. The Court also clarified that the High Court’s power under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and cannot be used to correct errors of fact or law unless there is a serious dereliction of duty or a violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.