RASHIK LAL AND OTHERS versus SHAH GOKULDAS & ANR.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 439 · Decided: 02-02-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RASHIK LAL AND OTHERS 
v. 
SHAH GOKULDAS & ANR. 
FEBRUARY 2, 1989 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND 
S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.] 
C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949: 
Clause J3(3)(ii)-Rent-Non payment of-When ground for eviction-
' Habitually in arrears with the rent'-The condition requisite-
Landlord accepting belated payments of monthly rent without any 
objection-Whether entitled to seek eviction of tenant on ground of 
default in payment of rent. 
A 
B 
c 
The landlord filed a petition for eviction of his tenant on the 
ground of wilful defanlt in payment of rent and bona fide reqniremeot 
under sub-clauses (ii) & (vi) respectively of Clause 13(3) of the C.P. and 
D 
Berar letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The landlord 
alleged that the rent was payable on the expiry of each month, and 
pleaded that as the tenant paid the rent in lnmp-sums representing the 
rent of several months together, he had committed wilful default and 
was liable for eviction. The tenant contested the petition and pleaded 
that the accummulated rents were accepted by the landlord without any 
E 
objection, and consequently he had no occasion to assume that the 
landlord was aggrieved by the manner in which the rents were paid. 
The tenant further asserted that the rent was payable at his con-
venience. 
The Rent Controller dismissed the application of the landlord 
F 
both on the ground of bona fide requirement and wilful default. The 
Appellate Authority-the Resident Deputy Collector confirmed the 
order of the Rent Controller in appeal. 
The landlord thereafter approached the High ·Court under Article 
227 of the Constitution. The High Court while confirming the order of 
G 
the Rent Controller in so far as the ground of bona fide necessity was 
concerned, held that the tenant was a habitual defaulter in payment of 
rent, and was therefore, liable for eviction. 
The tenants-appellants in CA No. 1953 of 1980 challenged the 
order of their eviction, while the landlord-appellant in CA No. 1954 of 
H 
439 
A 
B 
c 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989) 1 S.C.R. 
1980 challenged the order rejecting his eviction application on the 
ground that he failed to prove his case of bona fide requirement. 
Allowing Civil Appeal No. l9S3 of 1980, and dismissing Civil 
Appeal No. l9S4of1980 the Court, 
HELD: 1. The relevant provisions of the Rent Control Order 
require a tenant to be "habitually in arrears with the rent" as a 
c11ndition for the grant of the permission by the authority to the land· 
lord to determine the lease. This condition in the Rent Control Order Is 
different from the condition in several other statutes where mere non-
payment of rent for a particular period, has been provided as adequate 
ground for eviction of the tenant. [ 443C I 
2. The crucial test to determine whether the tenant was a 
'habitual defaulter' is the conduct of the landlord in receiving the rent 
offered belatedly. If be receives the same under a protest and warns the 
tenant to be regular in payment in the future, be cannot be assumed to 
D 
have agreed to a modified agreement in this regard. But if he, without 
any objection and without letting the tenant know his thought process, 
continues to receive rent at intervals of several months, he cannot be 
allowed to spring a surprise on the tenant by suddenly starting a pro· 
ceeding for eviction. [443G-H) 
E 
In the Instant case, there was no objection whatsoever, r1dsed Qn 
behalf Clf the landl<!rd against the delayed payments. The High Court, 
therefore was not right In reversing the concurrent finding of the two 
courts below. The judgment is set aside, and that of the Resident 
Deputy Collector is restored. [444B] 
) 
F 
S.P. Deshmukh v. Shah Nihal Chand Waghajibai Gujarati, 
~1
[1977) 3 SCC SIS, followed. 
Pandurang Tukaram Rajkondawar v. Salaram Madhaorao 
Chavan, [I98S) Mb. L.J. 169; Shishir Hari Mahajan v. Sanarasiobai 
Rodmal Sharma and Anr., [1982) MH. L.J. 908 and Nathuji 
G 
Narayanrao Udapure v. Narendra Vasanjibhai Thakkar and Anr., 
[1981] MH. L.J. 446, referred to. 
3. Both the Rent Controller and the Resident Deputy Collector 
h;ive on a earful consideration of all the relevant circumstances held 
that the landlord has failed to prove bis case of bona fide requirement. 
H 
The High Court while confirming the finding has again considered the 
RASHIK LAL v. GOKULDAS [SHARMA, J.[ 
441 
+ 
materials on the record. No acceptable ground for interfering with the 
A 
concurrent

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.