Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

M. BHASKAR versus J. VENKATARAMA NAIDU, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER A. NARAYANASWAMY NAIDU

Decided
10 September 1996
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 778 · 1996 INSC 1022

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

p. 778, margin E

This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh made on July 9, 1996 in CRP No. 4290/95. The matter arises under Section 10(2)(i) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The principal ground for eviction ordered by all the three courts below is that the appellant has committed wilful default in the payment of the rent from the month of June 1990 till October 31, 1990.

p. 778, margin F

The contention of Shri Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the respondent-landlord was staying in Hyderabad and the power of attorney holder is his brother-in-law- cum-maternal uncle and that whenever he was coming to Madanpalle, he was paying the rents and, therefore, there is a contract to the contrary. We find no substance in the contention. Though parties are related, nonetheless when the appellant is staying in the premises as tenant, he has got an obligation to pay the rent regularly. If he does not do so, he commits wilful default. If he finds that the landlord is evading the payment of rent, procedure has been prescribed under Section 8 of the Act to issue notice to the landlord to name the bank and if he does not name the bank, the tenant has to file an application before the Rent Controller for permission to deposit the rent. The appellant did not avail of that remedy. The omission to avail of the procedure under Section 11 does not disentitle the landlord to seek eviction for willful default.

pp. 778–779, margin H

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, three months' time from today is granted to the appellant to vacate the premises on his giving an usual undertaking with four weeks from today. No costs. G.N. Appeal dismissed.

p. 779, margin C