The Chief Justice.-The petitioner filed an application for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Tribunal found that there was default, but held that default by itself cannot be regarded as a valid ground to eject a tenant in a case where the tenant proves that by long practice the house owner did not insist on regular monthly payment of rent. The Appellate Tribunal thought that this conclusion was justified by the spirit of Act XV of 1946. We have no hesitation in saying that both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Tribunal committed a clear error of law. There cannot be an agreement under which rent is payable at irregular intervals. It may be that the landlord was not insisting on regular payments and was accepting without protest arrears of rent which had accumulated. But when he chooses to apply under section 7 of the Act, he will be entitled to an order of eviction if he can prove that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. It is not suggested that the tenancy was not a monthly tenancy; therefore the rent for each month was payable before the last day of the month next following. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Tribunal have found that there was default in payment of rent according to this provision. They ought to have therefore passed an order of eviction. The orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Tribunal are quashed and there will be an order for eviction in favour of the petitioner.

V.S. ----- Orders quashed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document