Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a petition for eviction filed by a landlord against his tenant, alleging wilful default in rent payment and bona fide requirement under the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The landlord claimed that the tenant's practice of paying rent in lump sums for several months constituted wilful default. The tenant contested this, asserting that the landlord accepted these payments without objection, leading him to believe that the landlord was not aggrieved by the payment method. The Rent Controller dismissed the landlord's application, a decision upheld by the Appellate Authority. The landlord then approached the High Court, which partially reversed the lower courts' findings, declaring the tenant a habitual defaulter. The tenant appealed this decision. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, emphasized that the landlord's acceptance of delayed payments without protest indicated an implied agreement regarding the payment schedule. The court noted that the landlord could not suddenly claim eviction based on a change in the payment arrangement without prior notice. The court restored the decision of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, dismissing the landlord's appeal regarding bona fide requirement. The court directed that the tenant should pay rent regularly moving forward to avoid being classified as a habitual defaulter. The appeals were decided with costs awarded to the tenant.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Habitual Default - Condition for Eviction - C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, Clause 13(3)(ii) - The court held that the landlord's acceptance of delayed rent payments without objection negated the claim of habitual default, thus preventing eviction. (Paras 443C-444B) B) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement - Failure to Prove Requirement - C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, Clause 13(3)(vi) - The court confirmed that the landlord failed to establish bona fide requirement for eviction, leading to dismissal of the appeal. (Paras 441H-442A-B)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the landlord was entitled to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent despite accepting belated payments without objection.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 1953 of 1980, restoring the decision of the Rent Controller and dismissing Civil Appeal No. 1954 of 1980 regarding bona fide requirement.
Law Points
- Habitual defaulter
- Rent Control
- Eviction
- Acceptance of rent
- Implied agreement
