-
iDraf
-
Facts
Lingambhotla Subbayya
v.
Subordinate Judge
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 5099 Of 1950 | 14-02-1951
RAJAMANNAR, C. J.
( 1 ) THE petnr. filed an appln. for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. Both the Bent 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 [15] of 1946. We have no hesitation in saying that both the Kent 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 choose a 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 nest 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 Bent Controller and the Appellate tribunal are quashed and there will be an order for eviction in favour of the petnr.
( 1 ) THE petnr. filed an appln. for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. Both the Bent 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 [15] of 1946. We have no hesitation in saying that both the Kent 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 choose a 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 nest 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 Bent Controller and the Appellate tribunal are quashed and there will be an order for eviction in favour of the petnr.
Advocates List
For the Appearing Parties D.P. Narayana Rao, J. Sita Mahalakshmi, M. Satyamathi, Advocates.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. RAJAMANNAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOMASUNDARAM
Eq Citation
(1951) 1 MLJ 514
AIR 1951 MAD 864
LQ/MadHC/1951/63
HeadNote
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
