A tenant is a habitual defaulter within the meaning of Cl.13(3)(ii) of the R.C.O., 1949 if he either forms a habit to commit defaults or suffers from an inherent disability to discharge his liabilities when he is expected and bound to discharge even according to the practice alleged by him.

PAUNIKAR, J.:- This appeal is filed by the appellant-landlord challenging the judgment dated 1-4-1962 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 548 of 1978.

2. The landlord filed application on 4-10-1975 against the tenant respondent for permission to terminate the tenancy of the tenant under Cl.13(3)(i), (ii) and (vi) of Rent Control Order, 1949 before the, Rent Controller, Wani. His case under Cl.13(3)(i) was that the tenant had agreed to pay rent of every three months in advance at the rate of Rs.32/- p.m. On the date of the application, the tenant was in arrears of rent of Rs. 192/-. Under Cl.13(3)(ii) he has filed a schedule, of payment of rent to show that rent was never paid as per agreement and submitted that the tenant was a habitual defaulter in payment of rent. Under Cl.13(3)(vi) he contended that he was 56 years old and was due to retire shortly. He has no other house to reside except the suit house in the city of Wani and hence he wants the premises in occupation of the tenant for his bona fide occupation.

3. The tenant vide his written statement denied that every three months rent was payable in advance. He submitted that rent was payable monthly but it was to be paid in next month. He further submitted that landlord's brother Pundalik alias Nanaji used to recover rent Despite tenant's request to accept rent every month, he told the tenant that rent should be paid as and when demanded or at the end of six months. This practice of paying rent of every six months was followed till the filing of the application by the landlord. The landlord vide his letter dt. 6-7-1969 informed the tenant that he should not pay rent to Nanaji, his brother and the amount should be paid to him directly by money order or a bank draft and the tenant accordingly started remitting rent by money order without deducting money order commission. However when he started sending rent deducting money order commission, the landlord again asked him to pay rent to his brother Nanaji as before. He also filed a schedule of payment of rent with the return in LPA. The. tenant denied that the landlord required the premises for his own use and occupation and contended that the landlord is in occupation of 8 big rooms of the said house and 2 rooms out of 8 big rooms in his possession were leased out by him after the filing of this application. He submitted that even 6 rooms in his possession are sufficient to meet his needs. He denied the arrears alleged on the date of the application.

4. The parties went on trial. The landlord examined himself as AW 1 and the tenant examined himself as NA, The Rent Controller vide his order dt 31-7-1976 granted permission to the landlord under Cl.13(3)(ii) and (vi) of the R.C.O., 1949. On appeal preferred by the tenant against this order, the appellate authority, Resident Deputy Collector, Yeotmal vide his order dt 31-10-1977 confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. These orders were challenged in Special Civil Application preferred by the tenant before the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court and the Hon'ble Judge vide his judgment dt 1-4-1982 set aside the concurrent findings of facts and thus quashed and set aside the orders of the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority and dismissed the application of the landlord for permission to terminate the tenancy of the tenant on both the grounds. It is this judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge which is challenged in this appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant Shri J. N. Chandurkar restricts himself to the case of the landlord under Cl.13(3)(ii) and does not press his case under Cl.13(3)(vi) of the R.C.O. Hence we propose to deal only with respect to the issue whether the tenant is a habitual defaulter within the meaning of Cl.13(3)(ii) of the R.C.O.1949 and if so whether the landlord is entitled to permission to terminate the tenancy of the tenant under the said clause.

6. The landl