SUKHESH CHAND GUPTA Vs. MADAN LAL

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 4600 of 2017, Judgment Date: Mar 28, 2017

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4600 OF 2017
             [ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 18644 OF 2013 ]

SUKHESH CHAND GUPTA                                           Appellant (s)

                                VERSUS

MADAN LAL                                                     Respondent(s)
                                    WITH

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4705 OF 2017
             [ @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 17178 OF 2013 ]

                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.
1.    Leave granted.

2.    The appellant is aggrieved since two concurrent  findings  on  default
in payment of rent have been upset by the High Court  on  a  petition  filed
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.   It  is  the  case  of  the
tenant that the defaulted rent had been sent by money order and  it  is  the
landlord, who refused to accept the money order.

3.    There is no dispute that the case  of  money  order  was  not  set  up
before the trial court or before the first Appellate Court.   That  was  set
up only before the High Court.

4.    Even assuming, the High Court could look into such materials  at  that
stage, it is seen from the money order that the amount sent  was  Rs.  632/-
in the month of May, 2002 when the rent was only paltry sum of Rs. 24/-  per
month.

5.    Therefore, this is a case of willful  default  for  all  purposes  and
hence, the High Court was not justified  in  reversing  the  findings.   The
impugned Judgment of the High Court is, hence, set  aside  and  the  appeals
are allowed.

6.    The Judgment and order passed by the Rent Controller and  as  affirmed
by the appellate authority is restored.

7.    At this stage, the learned counsel for the tenant seeks some  time  to
surrender vacant possession of the premises in question.   It  is  submitted
that the small shop is the only means of livelihood for his family.

8.    Having regard to the entire  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,
though the prayer is seriously opposed by the landlord, we are of  the  view
that the equities could be balanced if the  respondent-tenant  is  permitted
to continue in occupation of the premises till the end of  month  of  Diwali
in the year 2018.  Ordered accordingly.

9.    However, this is subject to the following conditions :-
1)    The respondent-tenant shall  file  a  usual  undertaking  before  this
Court within three weeks from today.
2)    He shall undertake not  to  sublet  the  premises  or  to  change  the
business or induct any new partner.
3)    The respondent will continue to pay  the  amount  of  rent  as  he  is
paying now, as a special case, towards use and occupation charges.

10.   It is made clear that in case of any default in abiding by the  order,
as above, the respondent-tenant shall be liable for  consequences  including
the liability for contempt of this Court.

                                                   .......................J.
                                                           [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]


                                                   .......................J.
                                                            [ R. BANUMATHI ]

      New Delhi;
      March 28, 2017.