Supreme Court Upholds Wilful‑Default Eviction and Grants Six‑Month Time to Vacate

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan heard an appeal by the heirs of a lessee against a revisional judgment of the Madras High Court which had affirmed an appellate order of eviction. The challenge related to whether the appellants could be evicted on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent following fixation of fair rent by the Rent Controller and subsequent litigation.

The Court held that the High Court rightly exercised its revisional jurisdiction in refusing to upset the appellate finding of wilful default and dismissed the civil appeal. The judgment reiterated that “mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay of the decree/order under appeal” and that a tenant who did not seek a stay before appellate fora could not rely on pendency of proceedings to avoid liability. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court also noted that payments made pursuant to this Court’s earlier order were directed “without prejudice” and did not operate as a bar to landlord’s rights to pursue eviction for wilful default.

Background The dispute arose from a series of written leases executed in 1999–2001 by which portions of a godown and adjacent buildings in Coimbatore were let to the late K. Subramanian (proprietor of M/s Royal Agencies). The parties disagreed on the contractual rent and, in 2004, the owner M/s Krishna Mills filed an application for fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller fixed fair rent at Rs.2,43,600 per month with effect from 1.2.2005 by order dated 10.01.2007. The lessee continued paying a lower sum and challenged the fixation; the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 20.02.2008. The lessee did not seek a stay of the fair‑rent order; substantial arrears accumulated and the landlord issued notices.

The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 alleging wilful default. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition on 06.02.2019, finding lack of proof for some claimed earlier rents and noting payments made in various stages. The appellate court, however, reversed that order on 25.02.2020 and held that belated clearance of arrears, after prolonged litigation and without stay of the fair‑rent order, amounted to wilful default. The Madras High Court, in revisional proceedings, on 22.06.2021 affirmed the appellate finding and declined to reopen the concurrent factual conclusions.

Counsel for the appellants argued that arrears were disputed and payments were made in compliance with interim orders and this Court’s directions; reliance was placed on authorities that, they contended, protected tenants litigating bona fide disputes on quantum. Counsel for the respondent contended that fair rent had been judicially determined and the tenant had not sought a stay; non‑payment despite judicial determination constituted wilful default. The Supreme Court agreed with the respondent’s position, applying Sundaram Pillai and related precedent to hold that absence of stay and prolonged non‑payment were material to the finding of wilful default. The appeal was dismissed; the Court granted the appellants six months to vacate and hand over possession, subject to usual undertakings, and directed that in default the landlord could proceed with execution. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1309 / Civil Appeal No. 2561 of 2025 Case Title: K. SUBRAMANIAM (DIED) THROUGH LRS K.S. BALAKRISHNAN & ORS. v. M/S KRISHNA MILLS PVT. LTD. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Ms. V. Mohana, Senior Counsel