Strict rent payment requirements under rent control law: delayed rent acceptance does not waive statutory default for eviction.

A rent control statute that requires rent to be paid within a prescribed time treats arrears within the statutory period as a default ground for eviction, and strict compliance is necessary. Mere acceptance of delayed rent by the landlord does not waive the tenant's statutory default or remove the eviction ground. Earlier decisions cited by the tenants were treated as non-binding or confined to technical facts, and were not accepted as overruling the relevant High Court view. The discussion confirms that equitable considerations cannot defeat the statute where continued protection depends on timely payment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether acceptance of delayed rent by the landlord waived the tenant's statutory default so as to defeat eviction under the rent control law. (ii) Whether the earlier decisions relied upon by the tenants laid down binding and correct law governing eviction for arrears of rent.

Issue (i): Whether acceptance of delayed rent by the landlord waived the tenant's statutory default so as to defeat eviction under the rent control law.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required rent to be paid within the prescribed time and treated arrears of two months as a ground for eviction. The provision did not depend on wilful or habitual default but on the existence of arrears. Once the statute fixed the time for payment, strict compliance was necessary and equitable considerations could not override the statutory mandate.

Conclusion: The tenant's default was not waived by mere acceptance of delayed rent, and the ground of eviction on arrears remained available.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier decisions relied upon by the tenants laid down binding and correct law governing eviction for arrears of rent.

Analysis: One earlier decision was held not to lay down law under Article 141 because it contained no reasoning, facts, or consideration of precedent. Another order was treated as a case of relief granted on technical facts under Article 142 and was not accepted as stating the correct legal position. The Court upheld the view that those decisions did not overrule the Full Bench view of the High Court.

Conclusion: The earlier decisions did not control the issue, and the High Court's approach was sustained.

Final Conclusion: Eviction for arrears of rent under the statute depends on strict observance of the prescribed payment period, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a rent control statute makes payment within a specified time a condition of continued protection, arrears within the statutory period constitute default and cannot be neutralised by equitable considerations or by mere acceptance of belated rent.

---