Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a tenancy of a portion of land at Akola, leased by the respondent-landlord to the petitioner-Indian Oil Corporation Limited under a lease deed dated 16-12-1969. The annual lease expired on 15-4-1985. The landlord issued a notice on 10-4-1985 demanding vacant possession and filed Regular Civil Suit No.298 of 1985 on 14-4-1985 for eviction. During the pendency of the suit, the tenant tendered rent for the period 16-4-1985 to 15-4-1986 by demand draft, which the landlord refused to accept as rent, offering instead to accept it as damages. The suit was decreed on 28-4-1989, and the tenant's Regular Civil Appeal No.199 of 1989 was dismissed on 16-2-1995. The tenant then filed Second Appeal No.237 of 1995 before the High Court. In that appeal, on 6-9-2006, the High Court directed the tenant to pay arrears of rent from 15-4-1985 at the rate of Rs.7,620 per year, which the tenant complied with. The Second Appeal was ultimately disposed of on 10-4-2008, making the decree subject to grant of permission by the Rent Controller under the provisions of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949. Consequently, the landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking permission to determine the tenancy on grounds under Clauses 13(1) and 13(3)(ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order, alleging habitual default in payment of rent. The Rent Controller, by order dated 17-11-2009, granted permission on all grounds. The tenant appealed to the Additional Collector, who partly allowed the appeal on 30-9-2010, setting aside the finding of bona fide requirement but maintaining the permission under Clause 13(3)(ii) for habitual default. The tenant then challenged both orders in a writ petition before the High Court. The core legal issue was whether the landlord had established habitual default under Clause 13(3)(ii). The tenant argued that the landlord had refused to accept rent, that the application lacked specific pleadings, and that the civil court's findings were without jurisdiction. The landlord contended that the tenant had remained in arrears for 22 years, demonstrating habitual default. The High Court, after examining the pleadings, found that the landlord's application contained only a bald allegation of habitual default without any details of the number of defaults or the period of each default. No schedule of defaults was annexed. Relying on precedents, the court held that habitual default must be intentional, deliberate, and conscious, and that without material particulars in the pleadings, no evidence could be led. The court also noted that the landlord's refusal to accept rent and the tenant's subsequent payment of arrears as per court direction contradicted the allegation of wilful default. The court concluded that the authorities below had ignored the basic requirement of pleadings, and therefore the permission granted under Clause 13(3)(ii) could not be sustained. The petition was allowed, the impugned orders were quashed, and the landlord's application was dismissed. The judgment underscores the importance of proper pleadings in rent control proceedings and clarifies that mere allegations without specifics do not constitute proof of habitual default.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Habitual Default - Pleadings Requirement - C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, Clause 13(3)(ii) - The landlord's application lacked specific pleadings regarding the number and period of defaults; no schedule of defaults was annexed. Held that in the absence of material facts and particulars constituting habitual default, no evidence could be permitted, and the findings of the authorities below cannot be sustained (Paras 7-8). B) Rent Control - Habitual Default - Interpretation of Clause 13(3)(ii) - C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, Clause 13(3)(ii) - Habitual default must be intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious with full knowledge of legal consequences, as per Sunderam Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman and Surendrakumar Ambalal Khatri v. Subhash Sitaram Zanwar. The conduct of parties is crucial, and the landlord's refusal to accept rent cannot be ignored (Paras 6, 9-10). C) Rent Control - Jurisdiction - Finding of Default by Civil Court - C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 - A finding of habitual default recorded by a civil court without jurisdiction, prior to the application of the Rent Control Order, is not binding on the Rent Controller. Held that the competent authority under the Rent Control Order is the Rent Controller, and evidence must be led afresh before it (Para 9). D) Rent Control - Habitual Default - Tenant's Conduct - The tenant had tendered rent which the landlord refused to accept as rent but was willing to accept as damages. The tenant later deposited arrears as per High Court direction. Held that these facts negate the allegation of habitual default. The landlord failed to prove the defaults with specific details (Paras 2-3, 7, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the test under clause 13(3)(ii) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, for granting permission to determine the lease on the ground of habitual arrears of rent was satisfied, particularly in the absence of detailed pleadings by the landlord
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17-11-2009 of the Rent Controller and the order dated 30-9-2010 of the Additional Collector, to the extent they granted permission under Clause 13(3)(ii) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, are quashed and set aside. The landlord's application under Clauses 13(1), 13(3)(ii) and (vi) is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Habitual default requires intentional
- deliberate
- calculated and conscious default with knowledge of legal consequences
- pleadings must contain material facts and particulars of each default
- evidence cannot be led without pleadings
- finding of habitual default by civil court without jurisdiction under Rent Control Order is not binding
- conduct of parties
- including landlord's refusal to accept rent
- is relevant
