Lingambhotla Subbayya vs The Subordinate Judge and Another

Rajamannar, C.J.—The petnr. filed an appln. for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. Both the Bent Controller & 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 & 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 & was accepting without protest arrears of rent which had accumulated ; but when he choose a

to apply u/s 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 Eent Controller & 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 & the Appellate Tribunal are quashed & there will be an order for eviction in favour of the petnr.