R KANTHIMATHI Vs. BEATRICE XATRICE XAVIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The question raised in this appeal is an interesting question and of some importance. The question is: "Whether on the execution of agreement to sell, by the landlord with the tenant and landlord having received substantial portion of the sale consideration, the relationship of landlord-tenant inter se between them ceases and fresh rights and obligations flows under this agreement -

(2.) The present appeal is by the tenant who received decree of eviction against him by the order of trial Court confirmed by the appellate authority and finally affirmed by the High Court. The respondent landlord filed a suit for eviction on the ground of wilful default and also of committing an act of waste under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Her case is that though that tenant paid rent regularly upto March, 1977, but thereafter did not pay rent regularly. But on request of the tenant-appellants to the landlady she agreed to sell the disputed premises, as a consequence, the agreement of sale was executed on 4-5-1977. According to the landlady, a breach was committed by the appellants, hence she repudiated that agreement by returning the amount she received under it and then she filed a suit for eviction against the tenant. It is not in dispute that in terms of the said agreement, the total sale consideration was a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. Out of this tenant paid Rs. 20,000/- to the landlady on the date of agreement itself. The balance of Rupees 5,000/- remained to be paid on the date of registration of the sale deed.

(3.) Relying on this agreement of sale, the appellants case is that on its execution, the relationship between respondent and the appellant changed. They no more remained as landlord and tenant. Hence the present petition for eviction under the aforesaid Act is not sustainable. In the alternative it is submitted, in any case non-payment of rent for this period cannot be construed to be a wilful default within the meaning of Section 10 of the aforesaid Act. The Rent Controller and the appellate Authority, both rejected this contention of the tenant and held that tenant committed wilful default which was confirmed by the High Court.