VIJAY AMBADAS DIWARE AND ORS. versus BALKRISHNA WAMAN DANDE AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 833 · Decided: 31-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-· 
VIJAY AMBADAS DIWARE AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
BALKRISHNA WAMAN DANDE AND ANR. 
MARCH 31, 2000 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
The Central Provinces and Baar utting of Houses and Rent Control 
Order; 1949-Clause 13 Sub-clause (3) Items (i) & (ii)-Application under-
On the ground that tenant was habitual defaulter and in an-ears of rent-Plea 
that the tenant cannot be treated defaulter since rent was paid in Court as per 
Civil Court's order-Rent paid in the court was neither regularly paid nor full 
amount paid-Held, tenant was habitual defaulter and in arears of rent. 
Words & Phrases-'Habit' & 'habitually'-Meaning of 
The appellant/tenant was directed by civil court iri a suit filed by G, 
to deposit rent directly to the court regularly at the end of the month till 
the amount to be recovered by G was fully satisfied. The appellant paid to 
the court Rs. 4000 in four instalments. The landlord filed an application 
before Rent Controller, seeking permission to issue notice of eviction on 
the tenant, alleging therein that the tenant, was in arrears of rent for 93 
months, amounting to Rs. 5766 and that he was a habitual defaulter in 
payment of rent. The tenant in his written statement pleaded that the rent 
was to be paid as per the convenience of the tenant and he was neither a 
habitual defaulter nor did he default in payment of rent; but he did not 
deny that he was in arrears of rent. Rent Controller granted permission to 
issue notice of eviction. The appeal against the order and thereafter the 
writ petition filed by the appellant/tenant were dismissed. 
In appeal to this court, the appellant contended that he was neither 
a habitual defaulter, nor was in arrears of rent, and that the non-payment 
of rent to the landlord cannot be treated as default as the right to collect 
rent by the landlord was suspended by the order of the Civil Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
833 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
834 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD : 1. The manner of depositing rent in installments clearly 
shows that the tenant repeatedly and continuously defaulted in payment 
of rent and he was therefore, habitual defaulter. He was also in arrears of 
rent as he did not pay the full amount of rent. (837-E] 
2. The civil court did not restrain the tenant from his legal liability to 
B 
pay rent regularly at the end of the month and he was only directed 
to deposit the rent in the court instead of paying to the landlord. Therefore, 
the contention that the tenant had no legal liability to deposit rent regularly 
in the court till the amount was fully satisfied, cannot be accepted. (837-C] 
c 
D 
J. Jennons v. Allamal & Ors., [1997] 7 SCC 382, distinguished. 
3. Expression 'habitual' would mean repeatedly or persistently and 
implies a thread of continuity stringing together repeated acts. An isolated 
default of rent would not mean that tenant was a habitual defaulter. 
[836-G] 
Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors., Affi (1984) SC 1334, 
referred to. 
Law Lexicon (Second Edition) by P. RamanathaAiyar, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3519 of 
E 
1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.1.88 of the Bombay High 
Court in C.W.P. No. 891 of 1988. 
V.N. Ganpule, S. Bishwajeet, S.V. Sonawani and RC. Kohli for the 
F 
Appellants. 
G 
H 
Yashank Adhyaru and Mrs. Nandini Gore for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PHUKAN, J. The landlord filed an application under Items (i) and 
(ii) of sub-clause (3) of Clause 13 of The Central Provinces and Berar Letting 
of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (for short the Order) before the 
Controller which was allowed and the controller granted permission to the 
landlord to serve the notice of eviction on the tenant. The appeal was 
dismissed by the Resident Deputy Collector, Amravati and the writ petition 
filed by the tenant was also dismissed in limine. 
·"" 
VUAY AMBA DAS DIWARE v. B.W. DANDE [PHUKAN, J.] 
1 835 
The landlord pleaded before the controller that the tenant was a 
A 
monthly tenant since 1961 and rent was to be paid on the first day of every 
month according to English calendar. It was also pleaded that the tenant was 
a habitual defaulter in payment of rent. The appellant-tenant pleaded before 
the Controller that rent was lo be paid as per his convenience and he was 
neither a habitual defaulter nor defaulted in payment of rent: Both the 
B 
auth

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