JUDGMENT - SINHA D.D., J.:---Heard Mr. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manohar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No. 1 is the landlord of the suit premises, and filed proceedings under the provisions of Clause 13(3)(i) and (ii) of the C.P. Berar Letting of Houses Rent Control Order. The Rent Controller, vide order, dated 23-5-2000, granted permission to issue quit notice to the petitioner-tenant under Clause 13(3)(ii) and rejected the permission sought by the landlord under Clause 13(3)(i) of the Order. The petitioner challenged the said order before the respondent No. 2 Appellate Authority, who, vide order, dated 24-7-2000, allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and set aside the permission granted by the Rent Controller under Clause 13(3)(ii) of the Order. It is further contended that the respondent-landlord filed a review petition seeking review of the order, dated 24-7-2000, which was allowed vide order, dated 26-12-2000, passed by the second respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition.

3. Mr. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioners, challenged the impugned order firstly on the ground that the respondent No. 2, while considering the review petition, has virtually reappreciated the entire evidence and the material facts placed on record by the parties, which, in fact, is not permissible in view of the judgment of this Court reported in (Tukaram Nathuji Sonkusare v. Dayalnath)1, 1985 Mh.L.J. 37.

4. The second ground on which the impugned order was challenged is that if the accumulated rent is accepted by the landlord without any objection at any point of time and the landlord had no occasion to assume that the landlord was aggrieved by the manner in which rent was being paid hence the tenant cannot be said to be a habitual defaulter in a situation like this.

5. In the instant case, the learned Counsel contended that there was no established practice in respect of the manner in which the rent is required to be paid by the tenant to the landlord. The schedule, which is annexed by the landlord in the proceedings, would show that right from the beginning the rent was being paid by the tenant as and when demanded by the landlord. It is, therefore, contended that in absence of any established practice in this regard and particularly when the rent was accepted by the landlord as and when paid without any protest, it cannot be said that the petitioner was a defaulter. In order to substantiate the contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (Rasik Lal v. Shah Gokuldas)2, 1989 Mh.L.J. 207.

6. Mr. Chaudhary, learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the impugned order is bad in law.

7. Mr. Manohar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand, contended that the schedule of payment was annexed with the application moved by the landlord under Clause 13(3)(ii) before the Rent Controller. The period, amount and date of payment are shown in the said schedule. The contents of this schedule have been admitted by the petitioner-tenant. On the basis of the above referred schedule, it is contended that the petitioner-tenant did not make the payment of the entire arrears of rent due and payable on various dates when the amount of rent towards arrears was paid by the tenant to the landlord. In order to demonstrate this fact, he has pointed out to the Court that Serial No. 11 in the schedule would show that the petitioner was in arrears of rent from 1-1-82 to 31-8-82. The amount of rent was Rs. 1360/-. However, these arrears of rent are paid on 8-12-1985. Similar is the situation in respect of the arrears of rent for the periods 1-9-82 to 31-1-83 as well as 1-2-83 to 30-4-84 and 1-5-84 to 30-9-84 and lastly 1-10-84 to 31-7-86. It is contended that at no point of time, the petitioner cleared complete arrears

Click Here to Read the rest of this document