PRAKASH DEOCHANDIA POPAT Vs. SHALINI DAMODHAR SHIVANIWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the petitioner/tenant was in arrears of rent on the date of filing of the application for the period of six months and whether the tenant is habitually in arrears of rent within the meaning of cl. 13 (3) (i) and cl. 13 (3) (ii)of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Premises and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order ).

(2.) RELEVANT facts are as under : the respondent is the owner of the premises in which the petitioner has been inducted as a tenant by virtue of the agreement dated 13. 1. 1984. The tenant had agreed to pay the rent of Rs. 350/- per month which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 360/- per month by virtue of the second agreement dated 1. 2. 1985. The tenant was irregular in payment of rent, the details of which are as under : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_92_BLR3_2004Html1.htm</FRM> The tenant denied that he ever was defaulter in payment of rent. Since the tenant was stated to be in arrears of rent, the landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller seeking permission to determine the tenancy. The Rent Controller passed the order on 16. 3. 1992 and directed the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 20,470/- within one month from the date of his order, in default granted permission to issue quit notice under cl. 13 (1) of the Rent Control Order. The tenant preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector and the Additional Collector confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller so far as the arrears of rent are concerned and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller by order dated 3. 8. 1992 for passing final order after verifying as to whether the tenant has deposited the amount of arrears within the stipulated period. The Rent Controller, after remand of the matter, considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and by his order dated 17. 9. 1992 granted permission for issuance of quit notice, as the tenant had failed to deposit the arrears of rent with the Rent Controller within the stipulated time. Then the tenant carried appeal to the Collector, who dismissed the same on merits by his order dated 4. 12. 1992. Thereafter the tenant filed review application bearing No. 2/mrc81/92-93. The Collector, on consideration of the facts and circumstances, rejected the review application on 21. 5. 1993. This order passed by the Collector in review application is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) MR. Dubey, learned Counsel, for the tenant contended that the tenant had paid Rs. 2,100/- to the applicant on 30. 7. 1984 as rent for the period of six months from 1. 2. 1984 to 30. 7. 1984. After this, the tenant made another payment of Rs. 1,440/- for a period of four months from 1. 2. 1985 to 31. 5. 1985. Then again he made payment of Rs. 1,800/- for a period of five months from 1. 6. 1985 to 30. 10. 1985 and the receipts of these payments were also received by him. He contended that the tenant again paid rs. 1,800/- on 8. 11. 1988 and Rs. 500/- on one occasion and again Rs. 600/ on the other occasion. The learned Counsel for the tenant contended that the payment of rent by the tenant has been proved on the basis of the entries recorded in the register maintained by the tenant. He contended that the landlord has tacitly admitted that the tenant was paying the amount of rent intermittently in a consolidated sum which was accepted without any demur or protest and moreover he did not issue any notice calling upon the tenant to pay the rent regularly and suddenly filed an application before the rent Controller seeking permission to issue quite notice.