SHRI CHAND KISHAN CHAND Vs. MAHAVIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Writ Petition at the instance of the tenant who is suffering the orders of Rent Controller as well as the appellate Authority holding him to be a habitual defaulter.

(2.) A brief resume of the facts is necessary to understand the controversy. The respondent/landlord started the proceedings against the present petitioner under Clause 13 (3) (ii) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of House and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the rent Control Order") and in that he averred that the petitioner was his monthly tenant and had agreed to pay Rs. 41-75 per month as rent. It is clearly averred thereafter that the tenancy month was commencing as a Hindu calendar month from Sudh 10 in each month Thereafter, on 14-12-1982 the tenant agreed to pay the rent according to the English calendar month, ie. first of each month It is contended that thereafter the tenant had become a habitual defaulter and did not pay regularly and committed defaults. A schedule was also prepared and annexed with the application. The defence of the tenant was that in fact he was not a monthly tenant but a yearly tenant and he used to pay yearly rent. He denied that he was a habitual defaulter or that he did not pay regularly. He pointed out in bis reply that he had sent the rent in advance for one full year and thereafter of the succeeding year but the landlord had failed to accept the rent by refusing to accept the money orders. It is also pointed out that in the year 1984 also the tenant had sent a money order but the said money order was also not received. Therefore, again a second money order was sent on 10-1-1985 and the same came to be accepted. The tenant thus stated that there was no default on his part neither he be termed as habitual defaulter within the meaning of the clause 13 (3) (ii) of the Rent Control Order.

(3.) THE Rent Controller accepted the case of the landlord and registered a finding that the landlord had established that the tenant had become a habitual defaulter by developing the habit of paying the rent irregularly. The main ground on which this finding was written was the irregular payment of the rent from 1976 to 1977 and really upto 1982. This finding has been confirmed by the Resident Deputy Collector - the appellate Authority, who has more or less paraphrafed the order. The resident Deputy Collector had made a very significant observation in his order that the yearly payments were made after 1983 and not before meaning thereby that the Resident Deputy Collector was more or less impressed by the irregular payments made prior to 1982 This so-called finding of fact confirmed by the Resident Deputy Collector has been challenged by the tenant.