K. Subramaniam (Died) Through LRs K.S. Balakrishnan & Ors. vs M/s Krishna Mills Pvt. Ltd.

Held: High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction rightly refrained from re-examining factual determinations and such an approach being reasonable and unexceptionable, it committed no error in affirming the appellate order of eviction passed against the appellants on the ground of wilful default – Plea that pendency of proceedings created uncertainty as to the quantum payable is of no avail to the appellants – Lessee challenged the fixation of fair rent but did not seek a stay of its operation before the appellate or revisional fora – Mere filing of an appeal does not operate as a stay of the decree/order under appeal – Payments were made belatedly and only after protracted litigation – Such conduct cannot be reconciled with bona fide doubt as to liability – Appellants defaulted in payment of rent and such default is undoubtedly a wilful default – Concurrent finding of the appellate authority, affirmed by the High Court, that the lessee and thereafter the appellants had been in wilful default, rests on sound appreciation of the legal position and the appellants’ own admissions – It cannot be said that the absence of a two months’ notice under the Explanation to s.10(2)(i) would ipso facto disentitle the landlord from maintaining the proceedings for eviction on the ground of wilful default – Statute, when read as a whole, does not render such notice an indispensable condition precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Rent Controller – Nature of default committed by the lessee satisfies the attributes of a wilful default and leaves little room to hold that no wilful default had been committed – Implication of “without prejudice” used in the order of dismissal of the SLP filed by the lessee would mean, that notwithstanding the liberty granted to the lessee to make payment, as per liberty granted, such payments were not to be seen as a waiver of respondent’s rights to realise unpaid rent and even to proceed for the lessee’s ejectment owing to wilful default committed by him – No advantage can be derived by the appellants by contending that payments having been made in terms of this Court’s order, the issue stood closed – Lessee, and subsequently the appellants, taking shelter of the pending appeal against the order fixing fair rent without, however, seeking a stay thereof and also in light of the parting observation made by this Court while disposing of SLP had no protective umbrella over him/them so as to remain absolved from tendering payment to the respondent. [Paras 31-34, 21-22, 24, 27-29] Judgment/order – Principle of finality of a judicial decision – Applicability, when appeal filed without seeking stay: Held: Judicial proceedings attain finality upon a decision being rendered by the apex court in the hierarchy of courts – Nonetheless, proceedings do attain finality even at the level of the High Courts, or the district courts or the trial courts if the immediate next superior forum is not approached by the party suffering the decree/order of the court seized of the lis – However, the principle of finality of a judicial decision would have no applicability in a situation where a party, despite owing money (unpaid rent, here) to his adversary in terms of a judicial determination, approaches the superior forum but prefers not to seek a stay of such determination pending the proceedings leaving the other party deprived of the benefits flowing from the said judicial determination – Bogey of judicial finality cannot, thus, be pressed into service to unfairly deny a party the benefits of a judicial decision, operation of which does not suffer from any interdiction by the superior court. [Para 30]