S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman
Supreme Court of India, 24 January 1985, 3 judges, 1985 AIR 582; 1985 SCR (2) 643; 1985 SCC (1) 591
The Explanation to the proviso to Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act does not exhaust 'wilful default': without notice the Controller decides wilfulness on the facts, and non-payment after two months' notice is presumed wilful.
Facts
Several appeals from the Madras and Andhra Pradesh High Courts raised the meaning of 'wilful default' in rent law. Under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 a tenant who fails to pay rent within the time fixed is in default; the proviso lets the Controller give 15 days to pay if the default was not wilful. An Explanation added by Act 23 of 1973 says default shall be construed as wilful if it continues after two months' notice by the landlord claiming the rent. Tenants argued that without such notice no default could be wilful; landlords argued that the Explanation was merely one instance of wilful default.
Questions before the Court
- What is the meaning of 'wilful default' in the proviso to Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act?
- What are the functions of a proviso and of an Explanation in interpreting a statute?
- Is the Explanation to the proviso an exhaustive definition of wilful default, so that no default is wilful without two months' notice?
What the Court held
- A default, to be wilful, must be intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious, with full knowledge of its legal consequences. A tenant who defaults repeatedly despite demands and without just cause is guilty of wilful default.
- A proviso may qualify or except something from the main enactment, change its concept by imposing mandatory conditions, become an integral part of it, or serve as an optional addendum explaining its intent. An Explanation explains or clarifies the enactment and cannot change it or take away a statutory right.
- Where no notice under the Explanation is given, the Controller decides whether the default is wilful on the tests laid down and may give the tenant 15 days to pay. Where the landlord gives two months' notice and the rent is not paid, the default is presumed wilful unless the tenant shows sufficient cause beyond his control.
- A suit filed after the arrears were fully paid, only to penalise past default, is not maintainable. The individual appeals were decided on these tests, some allowed and some dismissed.
Why it matters
The judgment states the functions of a proviso and an Explanation in statutory interpretation and defines 'wilful default' in rent control law. It reads the Explanation as clarifying rather than exhaustively defining wilful default. Mukharji, J. dissented on this point, holding that the words 'shall be construed' gave an exhaustive definition.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Thus, a consensus of the meaning of the words 'wilful default' appears to indicate that default in order to be wilful must be intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious, with full knowledge of legal consequences flowing therefrom.”
“It is now well settled that an Explanation added to a statutory provision is not a substantive provision in any sense of the term but as the plain meaning of the word itself shows it is merely meant to explain or clarify certain ambiguities which may have crept in the statutory provision.”
“(c) to provide an additional support to the dominant object of the Act in order to make it meaningful and purposeful, (d) an Explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevant for the purpose of the Explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance the object of the Act it can help or assist the Court in interpreting the true purport and intendment of the enactment,”
“(2) If the landlord chooses to give two months' notice to the tenant to clear up the dues and the tenant does not pay the dues within the stipulated time of the notice then the Controller would have no discretion to decide the question of wilful default because such a conduct of the tenant would itself be presumed to be wilful default unless he shows that he was prevented by sufficient cause or circumstances beyond his control in honouring the notice sent by the landlord.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 10(2)(i), proviso and Explanation, Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
- Section 10(2), Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960
Case and bench
- Parties
- S. Sundaram Pillai, etc. v. V.R. Pattabiraman etc.
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 1178 of 1984 with connected Civil Appeals
- Decided
- 24 January 1985
- Bench
- Fazal Ali, Syed Murtaza, Varadarajan, A., Mukharji, Sabyasachi
- Opinions
- Majority 2:1 on construction. Fazal Ali, J. delivered the judgment for himself and Varadarajan, J.; Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. disagreed on the meaning of the Explanation and differed in the appeals decided on wilful default other than after notice.
Questions on this case
4 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:
Question 1, Interpretation of Statutes Practice Set 2 — Aids & Doctrines
A proviso to a section of a statute is generally used to:
- A. Carve out an exception to the main provision
- B. Replace the main provision entirely
- C. Extend the main provision to new subjects
- D. Define terms used elsewhere in the Act
Show the answer
A. Carve out an exception to the main provision
A proviso ordinarily carves out an exception from, or qualifies, the main enacting part; it does not enlarge or replace it (S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, 1985).
Question 2, Interpretation of Statutes Practice Set 2 — Aids & Doctrines
An 'Explanation' appended to a section of a statute is generally used to:
- A. Create a new offence
- B. Clarify or explain the meaning of the main provision
- C. Override the main provision
- D. Repeal an earlier Act
Show the answer
B. Clarify or explain the meaning of the main provision
An Explanation is added to clarify the meaning of the main provision, to remove doubt or to fill a gap; it does not override or take away from the section (S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, 1985).