Case: Girijanandan Singh Parashram (Deceased) by His Lrs Vs. New Cotton Ginning and Pressing Company

Dr. A. S. Anand, J. This is a tenants appeal. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was inducted as a tenant of the demised premises in 1948 at a monthly rent of Rs. 25. On 11.12.1947, the respondent-landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller, Akot seeking permission to terminate the tenancy of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant under Clause 13(3)(ii) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Order). In the application, it was alleged that the tenant who was obliged to pay the rent at the end of every tenancy month was a habitual defaulter and that he used to pay the rent after a lapse of 2, 3 or 4 months and had thereby incurred the disqualification which justified the grant of permission to terminate his tenancy. The application was resisted by the tenant/appellant who pleaded that though the tenancy was a monthly tenancy, but there was an agreement between the parties that the rent was to be paid by the tenant as and when demanded by the landlord, who used to send a rent collector for that purpose. It was asserted that since he was paying rent as and when demanded, he could not be deemed to be a habitual defaulter. After recording evidence, the learned Rent Controller allowed the application holding the tenant to be a habitual defaulter. Permission was granted to the landlord- respondent to terminate the tenancy of the tenant-appellant under Clause 13(3)(ii) of the Rent Control Order. The tenants appeal before the Resident Deputy Collector, Akola was allowed. The appellate Authority held that the tenant was not a habitual defaulter. The landlord-respondent thereupon approached the High Court through a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. On 23.2.1981, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order of the Resident Deputy Collector and restored that of the Rent Controller. Hence this appeal by special leave. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is well settled that in the absence of any express or implied agreement to the contrary, in a monthly tenancy, the rent is payable at the end of each month of tenancy. In the instant case, however, perusal of Annexure `B Schedule filed in the Court of the Rent Controller, shows that right from the inception of tenancy, rent was not being paid at the end of every tenancy month but used to be paid sometimes after 2 months and sometimes even after 3 to 6 months. It, therefore, appears that the stand of the tenant-appellant to the effect that a practice had developed between the parties to make the payment of the rent as and when demanded on behalf of the landlord cannot be said to be untenable. That being the factual position, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the learned Resident Deputy Collector in exercise of the appellate powers. The Resident Deputy Collector, on the basis of the evidence on the record, categorically held that the tenant did not suffer from any financial disability to pay the rent nor had he developed a habit of being a habitual defaulter and that on the contrary, rent was being paid as per the practice which had developed between the parties at different intervals of time. The material on the record justifies that finding and it should not have been upset by the High Court in a petition under Article 227. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the order of the High Court cannot be sustained and we accordingly set it aside. 4. There is, however, one other aspect of the case. In 1948, the premises had been let out to the predecessor-in-interest of the present tenant on a rent of Rs. 25 per month only. The rent continues to be the same even though almost half a century has gone by. That rent, keeping in view todays inflationary prices, appears to us to be wholly unrealistic and unreasonable. We asked learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Mohta, whether the tenant should not increase the rent voluntarily. Since the appellant was present in Court, Mr. Mohta, on instructions from the appellant, submitted that the appellant was willing to increase the rent and to pay the same as may be fixed by the Court. It appears to us, keeping in view the present income of the appellant, which is stated to be about Rs. 4,000 per month that rent @ Rs. 400 per month would meet the ends of justice and do complete justice between the parties. The appellant agrees before us to pay the rent at that rate. We, therefore, direct that with effect from 1.3.1998, the appellant shall pay rent @ 400 per month for the demised premises. The rent shall be payable every month by the 7th day of the succeeding calendar month. In case there are any arrears, the appellant undertakes to pay the same, at the old rates, on or before 28.2.1998.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]Since the appellant was present in Court, Mr. Mohta, on instructions from the appellant, submitted that the appellant was willing to increase the rent and to pay the same as may be fixed by the Court. It appears to us, keeping in view the present income of the appellant, which is stated to be about Rs. 4,000 per month that rent @ Rs. 400 per month would meet the ends of justice and do complete justice between the parties. The appellant agrees before us to pay the rent at that rate. We, therefore, direct that with effect from 1.3.1998, the appellant shall pay rent @ 400 per month for the demised premises. The rent shall be payable every month by the 7th day of the succeeding calendar month. In case there are any arrears, the appellant undertakes to pay the same, at the old rates, on or before 28.2.1998.