Default in Rent (Section 10(2))

Of all the grounds on which a landlord may seek eviction, default in payment of rent is the most frequently litigated. Section 10(2)(i) of the Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 makes non-payment a ground for eviction, but the Act is protective legislation: it does not throw a tenant out for every slip. The pivotal word is wilful. A tenant who defaults innocently is given a statutory lifeline - a short window to cure - while the tenant who withholds rent deliberately, knowing the consequences, forfeits the protection the Act otherwise extends. This note unpacks the provision, the meaning of wilful default, the cure mechanism, and the case law that an aspirant must carry into the exam hall.

The statutory framework of Section 10(2)(i)

The Telangana Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (Act 15 of 1960) - originally the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and renamed for Telangana after the 2014 bifurcation - is a tenant-protective statute. Section 10(1) bars eviction except in accordance with the Act, and Section 10(2) sets out the grounds on which a landlord may apply to the Rent Controller for a direction to evict. The very first of those grounds, clause (i), is default in rent: the landlord must satisfy the Controller that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or, in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable.

Two timelines therefore matter. Where a tenancy agreement fixes a date for payment, the tenant has fifteen days beyond that date. Where there is no agreement, the rent for a month must be paid by the last day of the following month. Only after that period lapses does a default arise for the purposes of clause (i). The remaining grounds in Section 10(2) - sub-letting and unauthorised use under clause (ii), acts of waste under clause (iii), nuisance under clause (iv), securing alternative accommodation or ceasing occupation under clause (v), and denial of the landlord's title under clause (vi) - are dealt with in the companion note on grounds for eviction of a tenant. This note is confined to default in rent.

Wilful default: the pivot of the provision

The proviso to Section 10(2)(i) carries the protective heart of the clause. It directs that if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant's default to pay or tender rent was not wilful, the Controller may give the tenant a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days, to pay or tender the rent due together with such interest as may be specified, and on such payment or tender the application for eviction shall be rejected. The word "wilful" thus operates as a gatekeeper: a non-wilful default is curable and cannot, by itself, ground an eviction; a wilful default exposes the tenant to eviction.

The classic exposition of "wilful default" in rent-control jurisprudence is S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman, (1985) 1 SCC 591 (AIR 1985 SC 582). A three-Judge Bench held that a default to be wilful must be "intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious, with full knowledge of the legal consequences flowing therefrom." Mere delay or inability to pay because of genuine hardship is not wilful; what the Act condemns is the tenant who, having the means and the obligation, chooses to withhold rent. That decision arose under the Tamil Nadu Act but the definition has been applied across cognate rent statutes, including the Telangana/AP Act, because the statutory phrase is identical in substance.

Notice, conduct and the presumption of wilfulness

Sundaram Pillai also settled how an Explanation deeming default "wilful" after a two-month notice is to be read. The Court held that such an Explanation is illustrative, not exhaustive: it crystallises one clear instance of wilful default - continued non-payment after two months' notice of demand - but it does not exhaust the field. Where no notice has been issued, the Controller retains full discretion to examine the surrounding circumstances and decide whether the default was wilful. Conversely, where a notice has been served and the rent still not paid, a presumption of wilfulness arises which the tenant must rebut by showing that circumstances beyond his control prevented payment.

The practical upshot for an aspirant is that a statutory notice of demand is evidentiarily powerful but not a jurisdictional precondition. A landlord may establish wilful default through a pattern of conduct - repeated, conscious non-payment despite oral reminders - even without a formal notice. The Controller weighs the totality: the tenant's means, the regularity of past payments, the existence of any bona fide dispute, and the explanation offered.

The cure mechanism: fifteen days to redeem

The fifteen-day window in the proviso is a substantive protection, not a courtesy. Once the Controller finds that the default was not wilful, the Controller is empowered to grant a reasonable time not exceeding fifteen days for payment, and on payment within that time the eviction application must be rejected - the language is mandatory. This mechanism reflects the legislative policy that a tenant who has merely faltered, rather than defied, should not lose the roof over his head for a curable lapse.

It is important to distinguish this curative finding from the tenant's separate obligation to keep depositing rent during the pendency of proceedings. Courts have consistently held that a tenant who contests an eviction petition is expected to continue tendering or depositing the current rent as it falls due; failure to do so during the litigation can itself harden into wilful default. The cure proviso addresses the past arrears that founded the petition; the duty to stay current addresses the future rent that accrues while the matter is sub judice.

Tender, refusal and the tenant's good faith

Clause (i) speaks of rent "paid or tendered", and the disjunctive is deliberate. A tenant who genuinely tenders the rent discharges his obligation even if the landlord refuses to accept it. The standard defences a tenant raises to negate wilfulness flow from this: producing receipts, demonstrating bank deposits or money-order remittances, or proving that the landlord deliberately avoided acceptance so as to manufacture a default. Where a landlord refuses a bona fide tender, the tenant is expected to deposit the rent - typically before the Controller or by money order - so that the record shows a continuing willingness to pay.

The corollary is that the tenant cannot simply sit on the rent and claim the landlord "never asked". The obligation to pay is the tenant's, arising from the tenancy and the statute; it is not contingent on a demand. A tenant who allows arrears to accumulate and offers no credible account of efforts to pay will find the inference of wilfulness difficult to displace.

What amounts to a valid tender also repays attention. A tender must be of the whole rent then due and must be unconditional; a part payment, or a tender clogged with conditions the landlord is not bound to accept, does not discharge the obligation and does not stop the default from being wilful. Where the landlord's whereabouts are known, the tenant should remit by money order or seek leave to deposit; where the landlord deliberately makes himself unavailable, the safer course is to deposit before the Controller so that the readiness to pay is documented contemporaneously rather than asserted after the petition is filed. Good faith, in short, must be demonstrable on the record and not merely pleaded.

Bona fide dispute over the amount of rent

A recurring defence is that the tenant did not pay because there was a genuine dispute about the quantum of rent - often pending proceedings for determination of fair rent or an increase in fair rent. A bona fide dispute can negate wilfulness, but only if the tenant behaves honestly while the dispute is alive: he must tender or deposit the admitted rent and not use the dispute as a pretext for paying nothing.

The Supreme Court reinforced this in K. Subramaniam v. Krishna Mills (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2383, decided 11 November 2025. The tenant had challenged the fixation of fair rent but never obtained a stay of the order under appeal, yet withheld payment. The Court held that the mere pendency of an appeal does not operate as a stay of the order appealed against; a party who owes money and approaches a superior forum but chooses not to seek a stay cannot shelter behind the litigation to justify non-payment. On those facts the default was held wilful and eviction was affirmed. The lesson is precise: litigation is not a licence to withhold rent.

Burden of proof and the role of the Controller

The landlord who invokes clause (i) must first establish the relationship of landlord and tenant, the rate of rent, and the fact of arrears. Once arrears are shown, the evidentiary burden shifts to the tenant to explain the default and persuade the Controller that it was not wilful. The Controller's satisfaction under the proviso is a quasi-judicial finding reached after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity to show cause - the section expressly requires the tenant to be heard before any direction to evict.

This finding of wilfulness is largely one of fact, turning on the tenant's conduct and explanation, and appellate forums are slow to disturb a concurrent finding unless it is perverse or unsupported by evidence. For the aspirant, the framework is a sequence: default established by the landlord, opportunity to the tenant, the Controller's appreciation of whether the default was wilful, and - if not wilful - the discretionary fifteen-day cure that mandatorily defeats the petition once availed.

A point of frequent confusion is the standard of "satisfaction" the Controller must reach. It is not the criminal standard; the Controller acts on a preponderance of probabilities, weighing the tenant's pattern of payment against the explanation tendered. Past acceptance of irregular or delayed rent does not, by itself, operate as a permanent waiver: a landlord who has indulged a tenant in the past is not estopped from acting when payments cease altogether, though prior conduct is a relevant circumstance the Controller may take into account in judging good faith. The enquiry is holistic rather than mechanical, and the burden, once arrears are proved, rests squarely on the tenant to dislodge the inference of wilfulness.

Depositing rent to contest the proceedings

Beyond clause (i) itself, the scheme of the Act requires a tenant who wishes to contest an eviction application or pursue an appeal to keep the rent flowing. The tenant is expected to pay or deposit all arrears up to date and to continue depositing rent as it accrues until the proceedings terminate. The rationale is equitable: the law will not let a tenant fight to remain in possession while simultaneously enjoying the premises rent-free. A persistent failure to deposit current rent during the proceedings is treated as fresh and continuing default, and courts have not hesitated to draw the inference of wilfulness from it - as K. Subramaniam illustrates.

Aspirants should therefore read clause (i) together with the deposit discipline: the first identifies the ground; the second governs the tenant's conduct once the dispute is joined. A tenant may have an arguable defence on the original arrears yet still lose for refusing to stay current while the case runs.

A practical checklist for the exam

For the judiciary or CLAT-PG candidate, the analysis of a default-in-rent problem can be reduced to a disciplined sequence. First, identify the payment timeline - is there an agreement fixing the date (fifteen days' grace beyond it) or none (last day of the following month)? Second, ascertain whether the rent was paid or tendered within that window. Third, if a default exists, ask whether it was wilful within the Sundaram Pillai meaning - intentional, deliberate and conscious. Fourth, examine any notice and the tenant's conduct, recalling that a notice raises a rebuttable presumption but is not indispensable. Fifth, if the default is non-wilful, apply the mandatory fifteen-day cure proviso. Sixth, check whether the tenant stayed current during the proceedings, applying K. Subramaniam.

Set this against the broader scheme of the Act, which is introduced in the introduction to the Telangana Rent Control Act and explored across the hub at the Telangana Rent Control Act notes. Default in rent is the gateway ground, and mastering the wilful/non-wilful distinction is the single most rewarding investment a candidate can make in this subject.