LANDLORD & TENANT — Rent Control — Eviction on ground of wilful default — Where fair rent was fixed by Rent Controller (10.01.2007) and confirmed on appeal (20.02.2008) and the tenant did not seek a stay of fixation, continued payment of lesser contractual rent and delayed settlement of arrears for several years held to constitute wilful default — eviction decree sustained. (Paras 21–24, 28–31)

2025 INSC 1309
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 2561 OF 2025
K. SUBRAMANIAM (DIED) THROUGH LRS
K.S. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS. … APPELLANTS
VERSUS
M/S KRISHNA MILLS PVT.LTD. … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.”

II. HEADNOTES 

LANDLORD & TENANT — Rent Control — Eviction on ground of wilful default —
Where fair rent was fixed by Rent Controller (10.01.2007) and confirmed on appeal (20.02.2008) and the tenant did not seek a stay of fixation, continued payment of lesser contractual rent and delayed settlement of arrears for several years held to constitute wilful default — eviction decree sustained. (Paras 21–24, 28–31)

PROCEDURE — Effect of appeal/revision — Stay —
Filing of appeal/revision does not automatically operate as stay; absent specific stay, the operative order remains enforceable. Tenant’s failure to seek stay and to comply with fixation cannot be excused by pendency of proceedings. (Paras 21, 23–31)

INTERIM ORDERS — Effect of “without prejudice” direction —
Amounts paid pursuant to this Court’s order described as “without prejudice” do not operate as waiver of landlord’s rights to realise unpaid rent or to proceed for eviction for wilful default. (Paras 29–31)

SCOPE OF REVISION — Concurrency of findings —
High Court in revisional jurisdiction refrained from re-examining concurrent factual findings of appellate authority on wilful default; such concurrency of appreciation is not interfered with. (Paras 32–33)

RELIEF — Possession — Time to vacate —
Appeal dismissed; appellants granted six months to vacate subject to usual undertakings; in default, execution may follow. (Para 34)

III. CASE FACTS 

1. Respondent M/s Krishna Mills Pvt. Ltd. is owner of godown D. No.1084, Avinashi Road, Pappanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore; petition property comprises three portions of 5,000 sq. ft. each (total 15,000 sq. ft.) and a separate 500 sq. ft. shed — aggregate 15,500 sq. ft. (Paras 2(a)–(c)).

2. Lease(s) were executed: 11.10.1999 (5,000 sq. ft. @ Rs.15,000 p.m. for 15 years); Oct 2000 (another 5,000 sq. ft. @ Rs.15,000 p.m.); 01.05.2000 shed (500 sq. ft. @ Rs.3,000 p.m.); Oct 2001 (further 5,000 sq. ft. @ Rs.15,000 p.m.). Lesssee asserted rent payable was Rs.33,000 p.m.; landlord asserted aggregate Rs.48,000 p.m. (Paras 2(c)).

3. In 2004 landlord filed RCOP No.44/2005 for fixation of fair rent; Rent Controller by order dated 10.01.2007 fixed fair rent at Rs.2,43,600 p.m. payable from 01.02.2005. (Para 2(d)).

4. Landlord filed eviction petition RCOP No.134/2007 on 17.07.2007 alleging wilful default; claimed arrears thereafter. Lessee appealed against fair-rent fixation; appellate dismissal on 20.02.2008 confirmed fair rent. (Paras 2(e)–(f)).

5. Lessee filed revisional petition (CRP No.2511/2008); interim order required deposit of Rs.25,00,000 and payment of Rs.75,000 p.m.; lessee complied and paid Rs.75,000 p.m. (Para 2(g)).

6. High Court partly allowed revisional application on 09.09.2011 and reduced fair rent to Rs.2,37,500 p.m. (Para 2(h)).

7. Legal notice dated 01.10.2011 issued by landlord demanding arrears of Rs.1,22,22,000 after credit for deposit; lessee paid Rs.2,13,750 (after TDS) on 21.10.2011 and thereafter filed SLPs (SLP (C) Nos.6500–6501/2012). This Court dismissed SLPs on 23.03.2012 directing instalments of Rs.15,00,000 by 15th of each month along with regular rent of Rs.2,37,500 p.m. (Paras 2(i)–(j)).

8. Lessee paid sums in May–June 2012 (cheques of Rs.13,50,000 and Rs.2,13,750 after TDS). On 11.01.2013 full and final settlement claimed by lessee via cheque of Rs.2,22,000 (after TDS); landlord acknowledged receipt without prejudice. (Paras 2(k)–(m)).

9. Following demise of original lessee, landlord filed amended eviction application on 23.10.2017 impleading appellants (heirs). Rent Controller on 06.02.2019 dismissed RCOP No.134/2007; appellate court on 25.02.2020 reversed and allowed eviction on ground of wilful default; High Court in revision (impugned order dated 22.06.2021) affirmed appellate reversal. (Paras 2(n)–(q))

10. Central factual controversy: whether belated payments and conduct of lessee/appellants constituted wilful default warranting eviction. (Paras 20–21)

IV. HELD / JUDGMENT )

1. Wilful default established.
   Despite fixation of fair rent on 10.01.2007 (effective 01.02.2005) and confirmation on appeal, the lessee continued to pay a fraction of the fair rent, causing accumulation of substantial arrears (Rs.68,87,400 for 01.02.2005–30.06.2007). The lessee did not seek stay of the fair-rent order; payments remained belated and pendency of proceedings did not excuse non-payment. The conduct amounts to wilful default. (Paras 21–24, 28–31)

2. Filing of appeals/revisions did not operate as stay.
   Mere filing of appeal/revision does not automatically stay the operation of the impugned order; absent a specific stay, the operative fixation/order remains enforceable. The lessee’s failure to seek stay indicated either willingness to comply or acquiescence; it could not be used to justify continued non-payment. (Paras 23–24, 30)

3. Payments under “without prejudice” direction do not waive rights.
   Amounts paid pursuant to this Court’s order described as “without prejudice” did not amount to waiver of landlord’s rights to realize unpaid rent or to seek eviction for wilful default. (Para 29)

4. High Court rightly exercised revisional jurisdiction.
   High Court properly refrained from re-examining concurrent factual findings of the appellate court on wilful default; such concurrent appreciation was reasonable and not interfered with. (Paras 32–33)

5. Appeal dismissed; possession order and time to vacate.
   Civil Appeal is dismissed. Appellants granted six months from date of order to vacate and hand over vacant possession, subject to filing usual undertakings within a fortnight; in default, execution proceedings may follow. Parties to bear their own costs. (Paras 33–35)