1980 Supreme(Bom) 272
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(Nagpur)
Gadgil B.C. J.
Shishir Hari Mahajan .... Petitioner
Versus
Banarasibai Rodmal Sharma and another .... Respondents.
Spl. Civil Appln. No. 984 of 1975 decided on 2-12-1980.
Advocate appeared:
C. P. Kalele, for petitioner.
R. N. Deshpande, for respondents.
An agreement to pay rent in lump sum without any fixity of time is too vague to be a valid contract.
Headnote:
C. P. AND BERAR LETTING OF HOUSES AND RENT CONTROL ORDER, 1949 - SECTION 13(3)(I) AND (II) - RENT CONTROL - HABITUAL DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF RENT - INTERPRETATION OF COMPROMISE AGREEMENT - VALIDITY OF AGREEMENT TO PAY RENT IN LUMP SUM.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a petition challenging the appellate authority's order setting aside the Rent Controller's permission to terminate the tenancy under clauses 13(3)(i) and 13(3)(ii) of the Rent Control Order. The landlord contended that the tenant was habitually in default in payment of rent, while the tenant claimed that there was a practice, acquiesced by the landlord, to pay rent according to the tenant's convenience.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate authority's decision was perverse and based on ignoring material circumstances. The court held that the tenant's irregular payment of rent constituted habitual default and that the alleged practice of lump sum payment was too vague to be a valid contract.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenant was habitually in default in payment of rent. 2. Whether the alleged practice of lump sum payment was a valid contract.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the tenant's irregular payment of rent, despite the landlord's instructions to deposit the rent regularly in the bank, constituted habitual default. 2. The court held that an agreement to pay rent in lump sum without any fixity of time is too vague to be a valid contract.
Final Decision: The court quashed the appellate authority's order and restored the Rent Controller's order granting permission to terminate the tenancy.
2. Rodmal was occupying the tenement in the old house. The land-lord wanted to effect construction and alterations. Hence Revenue -Case No. BRA-20/71/Chikhali/62-63 was filed against the tenant. That application ended in compromise order. The terms of the compromise can be seen from the compromise application dated 4-6-1963 (Annexure- D). The tenant was to vacate the premises temporarily so as to enable the landlord to make new construction and thereafter the present tenement was to be let out to the tenant on the monthly rent of Rs. 30 according to the Hindu calendar and the rent was to be paid in advance on the first of every month. There are certain other terms incorporated in the compromise, but they are not relevant. The landlord constructed a new house and thereafter the tenement in question was let out by the landlord to the respondent as per the terms of the above compromise. The landlord contended that the tenant has been habitually in default in payment of rent though the landlord has directed all the tenants to deposit the rents regularly in the bank account in the name of the landlord. Along with the application (which was numbered as Revenue Case No. BRA-20/Chikhali/73-74), the landlord has filed Schedule as to how the tenant Rodmal had paid the rent from 1964 onwards. It is not necessary to give the details of the mode of payment, but suffice it to say that the rent had been paid not regularly but at intervals of 2, 4, 5, 6, 10 or 19 months. In addition on the date when the application before the Rent Controller was filed, the tenant was in arrears for more than 30 months.
3. The tenant resisted the application by his wittier statement. He admitted that he had been the tenant of the premises at the rate of Rs. 30 per month. He, however, contended that though the rent was payable in”'advance, there was a practice, which had been acquiesced by the landlord, that the rent was payable according to the tenant's convenience and whenever demanded by the landlord.
4. The Rent Controller after recording evidence that was led before him came to the conclusion that the tenant has formed a habit of being in arrears of rent and as such he was habitually in arrears. Permission under clause 13(3)(i) and (ii) was accordingly granted. The tenant took the matter in appeal No. BRA/Chikhali-31/74-75. The appellate authority by its order dated 30-6-1975 (Annexure-A) took a different view and came to the conclusion that there was no habitual default on the part of the tenant. The appeal was, therefore, allowed and the permission granted by the Rent Controller was revoked and hence this petition.
5. The main grievance of Shri Kalele for the landlord is that the entire approach of the appellate authority is so perverse that interference at the hands of this Court is absolutely essential and I think that there is much substance in this contention. For example in paragraph 3, the appellate authority has observed that the landlord in his application did not state since when the <appellant is his tenant nor he has gone in witness box to depose in support of his contention. In my opinion the question as to when the relationship of landlord and tenant came into existence was absolutely irrelevant in the background of the pleadings that were made by the parties. As far as the landlord not entering into the witne