Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an application filed by a landlord under the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, seeking permission to evict a tenant for non-payment of rent. The landlord claimed that the tenant had been in arrears since April 1, 1976, and was a habitual defaulter. The tenant contended that he was not in default and that rent payments were to be made at his convenience. The Controller and subsequent authorities found that the tenant had indeed defaulted in rent payments. The court examined the definition of 'habitual' and concluded that it referred to repeated and persistent actions, not isolated incidents. The tenant's argument that a civil court order suspended the landlord's right to collect rent was rejected, as the court did not relieve the tenant of his obligation to pay rent. The court upheld the findings of the lower authorities, confirming that the tenant was a habitual defaulter and dismissed the appeal, ordering both parties to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Habitual Default - Definition of Habitual Default - The Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, Clause 13 - The court defined 'habitual' as implying repeated or persistent acts, establishing that isolated defaults do not constitute habitual default. The tenant's repeated failure to pay rent as per the order led to the conclusion of habitual default. Held that the tenant was a habitual defaulter (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant was a habitual defaulter in payment of rent and whether the landlord had the right to serve eviction notice.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower authorities' findings that the tenant was a habitual defaulter and had defaulted in payment of rent. Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Eviction
- Rent Control
- Habitual Default
- Tenant's Liability
- Civil Court Orders
