ARJUNDAS JAMNADAS Vs. PYARELAL BINDESARI PD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition preferred by the landlord is against the order of the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati, in an appeal under the provisions of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order).

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner landlord filed three applications before the Rent Controller, Amravati, under Cls.13(3)(i) and (ii) of the Rent Control Order seeking permission to give quit notice to the respondent tenant. All the three applications were consolidated for common evidence and disposal. The Rent Controller by the order dt. 30-10-1975 held that the respondent tenant was in arrears of rent for more than three months, which he should pay within 30 days from the date of his order, failing which the permission would be deemed to be granted to the petitioner landlord to serve the notice upon the respondent tenant to determine his lease. However, as regards the case of the landlord about habitual default under cl.13(3)(ii) of the Rent Control Order, the same was rejected on the ground that there was no written agreement or rent note between the parties.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, refusing to grant permission under cl.13(3)(ii) of the Rent Control Order, the petitioner landlord preferred an appeal before the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati. The appellate Court found that in compliance with the order of the Rent Controller, directing the respondent tenant to pay arrears of rent within 30 days, the respondent tenant paid the rent in arrears and, therefore, no question survived so far as the permission under Cl.13(3)(i) of the Rent Control Order was concerned. As regards the question of permission under Cl.13(3)(ii) of the Rent Control Order, although the appellate Court rejected the reasoning of the Rent Controller, who held that there was no rent note or written agreement and, therefore, no question of habitual default under Cl.13(3)(ii) of the Rent Control Order would arise, the appellate Court came to the conclusion that it was the practice between the parties that the Munim of the landlord used to go to the shop of the respondent to recover the rent, and if the landlord was out of station, the rent receipts were signed by him after he returned In the circumstances, according to him, if there was any delay, the tenant was not responsible for the same and, as such, there was no question of any habitual default on the part of the tenant or any mental attitude on his part to remain in arrears of rent. The schedule filed along with the application under the Rent Control Order was, however, held proved by him. In view of the finding referred to above, the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner landlord. Being aggrieved he has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court.