1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.236 OF 2008. in WRIT PETITION NO. 5021 OF 2007 (Decided) Shri Ramkrishna Motiram Deshmukh and others. .vs. Ganpat Rambhau Narsoo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.M.R.Kalar, Adv. for the appellants. Mr.R.V.Shiralkar, Advocate for the respondent. Coram: ANOOP V. MOHTA and C.L.PANGARKAR, JJ. Dated : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2008. 1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal against the concurrent findings maintained by the learned Single Judge with regard to clause 13(3)(i)(ii) of the Rent Control Order, holding the appellant-petitioner/tenant as a habitual defaulter. The submission that after compromise dated 23rd July, 1993 filed in Revenue Case No.56/71(2)/88-90, the respondent-landlord accepted the 2 rent though it was not paid regularly as per the term which is reproduced as under us acceptable - “2. Non-applicant will pay rent regularly in advance on or before the 5th of every month and the applicant will pass the receipt.” 2. Admittedly, the respondent-landlord had to file a proceedings for eviction on this ground itself which was compromised, as recorded above. It also means it is clearly recorded that the tenant was habitual defaulter as contemplated under the Rent Control Order. However, it was settled and agreed that the tenant to pay the rent regularly in advance on or before 5th of every month and the landlord would pass the receipt. This, according to us, also is a sufficient notice. In fact the appellant agreed to pay the rent regularly in view of those terms. The requirement is to have notice/objection of such irregular payment and it should not be used against the tenant surprisingly. In the present case, according to us, as already recorded, the appellant even though habitual defaulter still pursuance to the compromise pursis allowed to retain the premises on the basic condition of regular 3 payment in advance on or before 5th of every month, but still not paid the rent accordingly. In our view also, there is no case made out by the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case to interfere with the concurrent findings given by the courts and confirmed by the learned Single Judge by relying and distinguishing the judgments cited by the appellant. In view of this, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. The Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No cost. JUDGE. JUDGE. chute