Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, tenants of a premises in Gondia, challenged the orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority granting permission to the landlord-respondent No.1 to evict them under clause 13(3)(i) and (ii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The Rent Controller had found that the tenancy month commenced from the 23rd of each English calendar month, with monthly rent of Rs.22, but the evidence did not disclose when rent was payable after expiry of each month. Based on two rent receipts (Exh.4 dated 01.02.1986 for period 23.3.1984 to 22.06.1985, and Exh.6 dated 02.10.1988 for period 23.06.1987 to 22.06.1988), the Rent Controller inferred that rent for subsequent periods was not paid, exceeding three months, and thus habitual default was established. The appellate authority upheld this, also granting permission under clause 13(3)(vii) for essential repairs, relying on the tenants' witness admitting the premises were dilapidated. The petitioners argued that the burden to prove tenancy month, payment period, and breach was on the landlord and was not discharged, and that the permission for repairs was mechanically granted. The High Court found that the Rent Controller's findings on tenancy month and time for payment were not clear from the evidence, and the inference of habitual default was based on insufficient receipts. The appellate authority failed to consider the requirements of law. The court set aside both orders and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration, directing the landlord to lead proper evidence on the tenancy month, period for payment, and habitual default. The court also noted that the permission under clause 13(3)(vii) was granted without proper evidence of essential repairs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Permission to Evict - Habitual Default - Clause 13(3)(i) and (ii) of C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 - Burden of proof - The landlord must prove the tenancy month, the period within which rent is payable, and habitual default. In this case, the evidence did not clearly establish the tenancy month or the time for payment, and the Rent Controller's findings were based on insufficient receipts. The appellate authority mechanically granted permission without proper analysis. Held that the impugned orders are set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Rent Controller and appellate authority correctly granted permission under clause 13(3)(i) and (ii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, without proper evidence of tenancy month and habitual default.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority, and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration. The landlord was directed to lead proper evidence on the tenancy month, the period within which rent is to be paid, and habitual default.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on landlord to establish tenancy month
- period for payment
- and habitual default
- Permission under Rent Control Order cannot be granted mechanically
- Appellate authority must consider evidence and requirements of law
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (01) 285
WRIT PETITION NO. 2975 OF 2005
Shri S.D. Sirpurkar for petitioners, Shri P.D. Kothari (AGP) for respondent No.2, Shri Paliwal for respondent No.1 (stated not available)
Smt. Fatima wd/o Pir Mohd. Rangraj and others
Sureshkumar s/o Shankarlal Agrawal and Additional Collector, Gondia
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging orders of Rent Controller and appellate authority granting permission to landlord to evict tenants under Rent Control Order.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (tenants) sought setting aside of the orders granting permission to evict.
Filing Reason
The Rent Controller and appellate authority granted permission under clause 13(3)(i) and (ii) of the Rent Control Order without proper evidence of tenancy month and habitual default.
Previous Decisions
Rent Controller granted permission under clause 13(3)(i) and (ii) for habitual default; appellate authority upheld and also granted permission under clause 13(3)(vii) for essential repairs.
Issues
Whether the Rent Controller and appellate authority correctly granted permission under clause 13(3)(i) and (ii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, without proper evidence of tenancy month and habitual default.
Whether the appellate authority mechanically granted permission under clause 13(3)(vii) for essential repairs without proper evidence.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that burden to prove tenancy month, period for payment, and breach was on the landlord and was not established.
Petitioners argued that evidence of landlord was silent about requirement of essential repairs, yet appellate authority mechanically granted permission under clause 13(3)(vii).
Respondent No.2 (Additional Collector) supported the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi
The burden of proof to establish the tenancy month, the period within which rent is payable, and habitual default lies on the landlord. The Rent Controller and appellate authority cannot grant permission under clause 13(3)(i) and (ii) of the Rent Control Order based on insufficient evidence. The appellate authority must consider the requirements of law and not mechanically grant permission.
Judgment Excerpts
the Rent Controller as also the appellate authority have overlooked the requirements of law in the matter of grant of permission under clause 13(3)(i) and (ii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949.
burden to prove tenancy month, the period within which the rent is to be paid and breach thereof was upon the respondent – landlord and the same has not been established in the matter.
the appellate authority overlooking the requirements in this respect, mechanically granted permission only because the witness for tenants accepted that the premises were dilapidated.
Procedural History
The Rent Controller granted permission to the landlord under clause 13(3)(i) and (ii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The tenants appealed to the appellate authority, which upheld the permission and also granted permission under clause 13(3)(vii) for essential repairs. The tenants then filed the present writ petition in the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949: Clause 13(3)(i), Clause 13(3)(ii), Clause 13(3)(vii)
