JUDGMENT

SHARMA, J. :— These appeals arise out of a proceeding under the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Order) initiated by Shah Gokuldas, appellant in C.A. No. 1954 of 1980 (respondent in the other appeal) for permission, to determine the lease of Bhagwanji, the original tenant. After the death of Bhagwanji during the pendency of the case, Rashiklal and others, the appellants in C.A. No. 1953 of 1980 were substituted as his legal representatives.

2. The landlords prayer was based on alleged wilful default in payment of rent and bona fide requirement under sub-clauses (ii) and (vi) respectively of Clause 13(3) of the Rent Control Order. The allegations were denied by the tenant and the Rent Controller dismissed the application. The landlords appeals was also rejected by the appellate authority, the Resident Deputy Collector. The landlord thereafter approached the High Court which confirmed the impugned orders so far as the ground of bona fide necessity was concerned, but allowed the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India holding that the tenant was a habitual defeaulter in payment of rent and, therefore, liable to eviction. The appellants in C.A. No. 1953 of 1980 have challenged the order of their eviction and the landlord Shah Gokuldas has appealed against the finding of the courts below negativing his case of bona fide requirement.

3. So far as C.A. No. 1954 of 1980 is concerned, both the Rent Controller and the Resident Deputy Collector have on a careful consideration of all the relevant circumstances held that the landlord-applicant has failed to prove his case of bona fide requirement. The High Court while confirming the finding has again considered the materials on the record. The learned counsel for the landlord has not been able to point out any acceptable ground for interfering with the concurrent findings of the three courts and C.A. No. 1954 of 1980 is, therefore, dismissed.

4. So far as the other appeal is concerned, the High Court has disagreed with the view of the Rent Controller which was affirmed by the appellate court. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants Rashiklal and others that having regard to the conduct of the parties in payment and receipt of rent of several months at a time, it should be held that there was in implied agreement between them to do so and the landlord is now not entitled to insist on the rent to be paid every month. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in S.P. Deshmukh v. Shah Nihar Chand Waghajibai Gujarati : (1977) 3 SCC 515.

5. The case of the landlord has been that rent was payable on the expiry of each month, and since this was not done the tenant was liable to eviction. The landlord filed a schedule in the trial court showing the intervals at which rents had been paid by the tenant during the period of 2 years immediately preceding the filing of the case. The schedule indicates that the rent was paid, according to the alleged stipulation, only for a brief period, and the rent for the rest of the period was paid in lump sums representing the rent of several months together. Admittedly the accumulated rents were accepted by the landlord without any objection at any point of time and the tenant had no occasion to assume that the landlord was aggrieved by the manner in which rents were being paid. The question arises as to whether in these circumstances the High Court was entitled to reverse the concurrent finding of the two courts below.

6. The tenant denied in express terms the arrangement pleaded by the landlord as mentioned above and asserted that rent was payable at his convenience. Mr. Kanta Rao, the learned counsel for the landlord contended that a plea about an alleged agreement to pay rent at the convenience of the tenant has to be rejected as untenable in law. According to the learned counsel an inference of implied agreement is possible by the conduct of the p