Irregular payment of rent may be tantamount to "non-payment of rent" within the meaning of Sec. 11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947.

1. In this case the petitioner, Bhagwan Das, has moved the High Court for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari for calling up and quashing the order of the Commissioner of Chotanagpur Division dated 9-9-1953 affirming an order of the Deputy Commissioner of Singh bhum dated 6-8-1952, directing the petitioner to vacate certain premises under the provisions of Sec.11, Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act (3 of 1947). In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed that the High Court may interfere with the order of eviction passed by the two tribunals under Article 227 of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of a house in Mouza Dhatkidih of which opposite party No. 1 is the landlord. On 5-12-1950, the landlord filed an application before the House Controller for eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal necessity. The application was dismissed by the House Controller, and an appeal was taken to the Deputy Commissioner on behalf of the landlord. The appeal was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner on 23-1-1952. But in revision the Commissioner of Chotanagpur Division held that the application of the landlord should be dismissed. On 16-5-1952, the tenant deposited in Court the rent due for the house from 12-12-1950 to 12-5-1952. The Controller issued notice to the landlord to withdraw the deposit of rent.

On 20-5-1952, the landlord filed an application before the House Controller for evicting the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from November, 1950 till May, 1952. The Controller dismissed the application on the ground that although the petitioner was liable to pay rent every month the petition for eviction should be rejected on the ground that on the date the application was uled there was actually no arrear of rent as the petitioner had deposited all the amount due. Against this order, an appeal was preferred by the landlord. The Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum allowed the appeal holding that there was a default for over a long period and no payment was offered and the petitioner was, therefore, liable to be evicted. The Deputy Commissioner took the view that the petitioner was liable to be evicted since he was a month to month tenant and there was default in payment of rent on the dates the monthly rent became due. It was held by the Deputy Commissioner that even though there was, in fact, a deposit of the entire amount of rent before the date of the application, there was in the eye of law a non-payment of rent on the part of the petitioner and so the petitioner was liable to be evicted under the provisions of Sec.11 of the statute.

Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, the tenant made an application in revision before the Commissioner of Chotanagpur Division. The Commissioner affirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner holding, that the petitioner was a month to month tenant and "there has certainly been non-payment of rent in this case in which the landlord is entitled to be put in possession." In these circumstances, the petitioner has moved this Court for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari or, in the alternative, for interfering with the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution.

3. In support of this application, Mr. B. C. Ghosh put forward the argument that in coming to a finding that there was non-payment of rent the two tribunals, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Singhbhum and the Commissioner of Chotanagpur Division, have committed an error of law. It was pointed out by learned counsel that in this case the petitioner had deposited in the office of the House Controller the entire rent which was due for the period from November, 1950 to May, 1952. Counsel laid stress upon the circumstance that this fact has been accepted as correct by both the tribunals. The argument was that the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner of Chotanagpur were not just