SWAMI RATANBABU Vs. WAMANRAKO SHANKARRAO DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by the petitioner-tenant to the order granting permission to the landlord to give a notice determining the lease under Clause 13(3)(i) and 13(3)(ii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Rent Control Order) is two-fold. It is firstly on merits, inasmuch as it is urged that there was an arrangement or a practice of paying rent whenever demanded by the landlord and, therefore, there was no default and secondly, on the constitutional validity of Clause 13(3)(ii) on the ground that the provision is vague and uncertain and does not provide adequate guidelines to the authority, who is to discharge the duties of applying the provisions.

(2.) The respondent-landlord sought permission of the Rent Controller for determining the lease of the petitioner who occupied shop premises admeasuring 10 X 12 feet, situated on Nazul Plot No. 14, Sheet No. 38-C at Akola at Rs. 80/- per month on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears to rent for a period exceeding three months and that he was a habitual defaulter in paying rent as the rent was payable by month. The petitioner denied that he was in arrears and contended that the rent was not payable at the end of the month, but was paid and was payable as and when the respondent came for demanding it and this practice was going on since many years. The two authorities below held that the petitioner was in arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 960/- from March 1979 to March 1980 and directed payment to be made by certain date, failing which permission under Clause 13(3)(i) was to be deemed to have been granted. Since the payment of Rs. 960/- has been made, the ground taken under Clause 13(3)(i) does not now survive.

(3.) With regard to the other ground, namely, the petitioner being habitually in arrears with rent, the Rent Controller took the view that no notice was issued by the respondent in respect of the alleged irregular payment of rents; that he never objected to the payment of rent at intervals from the beginning and had failed to establish the mental attitude to pay the rent irregularly. In this view of the matter, he refused to grant permission under Clause 13(3)(ii) of the Rent Control Order. The Resident Deputy Collector, who heard the matter, while reversing the finding of the Rent Controller, was impressed by the circumstance that the alleged arrangement had not been established and since the rent was payable by month and the shop of the petitioner was located near the office of the respondent the alleged arrangement to pay the rent whenever demanded could not be accepted. Holding on the basis of the schedule that was framed by the respondent in support of his allegations that the petitioner was habitually in arrears with rent, the Resident Deputy Collector granted permission under Clause 13(3)(ii) of the Rent Control Order.