Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Harish Nathmal Khetan, is the landlord and owner of a three-storied building known as 'Khetan Bhavan' in Old Cotton Market, Akola. Respondent No. 1, Shamlal Mannalal Bagdia, occupied a shop block comprising two rooms in the building as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 150, with an additional Rs. 60 per month towards municipal taxes, payable in advance for the year during Diwali. The landlord instituted proceedings under Clause 13(3)(i) & (ii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, contending that the tenant failed to pay the agreed rent and taxes from 16-10-1990 onwards, despite repeated demands, rendering him a habitual defaulter. The tenant filed a written statement denying personal liability, claiming that the tenant was a partnership firm, M/s. Shamlal Mannalal Company, and that there was no fixed time for payment of rent; the landlord used to collect rent as and when required. The tenant also alleged that a cheque sent by the firm was refused by the landlord. The Resident Deputy Collector and House Rent Controller, Akola, by order dated 26-4-1999, granted permission to issue quit notice. However, the Additional Collector, Akola, in Revenue Appeal BRA13(3)/Akola/4/2011-12, reversed that order on 13-1-2015. The landlord challenged the Additional Collector's order in the High Court. The High Court found that the Additional Collector's order was perverse and unsustainable. The court noted that the tenant's own written statement admitted that rent from Diwali 1990 onwards was not recovered by the landlord, and the tenant failed to prove any agreement for payment at irregular intervals. The court held that the tenant was a habitual defaulter and that the landlord was entitled to permission to issue quit notice. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Additional Collector's order, and restored the order of the Resident Deputy Collector granting permission.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Habitual Defaulter - Permission to Issue Quit Notice - Clause 13(3)(i) & (ii) of C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 - The landlord sought permission to issue quit notice on the ground that the tenant failed to pay rent and taxes from 16-10-1990 onwards, making him a habitual defaulter. The Resident Deputy Collector granted permission, but the Additional Collector reversed it. The High Court held that the Additional Collector's order was perverse and unsustainable, as the tenant's own written statement admitted non-payment of rent, and the tenant failed to prove any agreement for payment at irregular intervals. The court restored the order granting permission. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Collector erred in reversing the Resident Deputy Collector's order granting permission to issue quit notice under Clause 13(3)(i) & (ii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949, on the ground that the tenant was a habitual defaulter.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 13-1-2015 passed by the Additional Collector, Akola, and restored the order dated 26-4-1999 passed by the Resident Deputy Collector and House Rent Controller, Akola, granting permission to issue quit notice.
Law Points
- Habitual defaulter
- Rent control
- Permission to issue quit notice
- C.P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order
- 1949
- Clause 13(3)(i) and (ii)
