Wilful default and rent deposit procedure: disputed rent must be fixed first, and mandatory tender steps must be followed strictly.

Where rent payable is disputed, wilful default cannot be determined until the actual rent is first ascertained; the text states that the statutory scheme requires a summary determination of rent before default is assessed, and that the matter then needs fresh consideration on that basis. It also explains that the rent-deposit procedure under Section 8 is sequential: the tenant must first call on the landlord to specify a bank, then tender rent accordingly or remit it by money order, and only after refusal can the tenant approach the Controller under Section 8(5). Non-compliance with these mandatory steps renders the deposit application unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in the presence of a dispute about the actual rent payable, the question of wilful default could be decided without first determining the rent; (ii) Whether a tenant can invoke the machinery for deposit of rent under Section 8(5) without following the prior steps prescribed in Sections 8(2) to 8(4).

Issue (i): Whether, in the presence of a dispute about the actual rent payable, the question of wilful default could be decided without first determining the rent.

Analysis: The rent payable was disputed between the parties. The appellate authority had not recorded a clear finding on the actual monthly rent. In such a situation, the statutory scheme requires the authority to determine the rent payable before examining whether the tenant was in default. Section 11(3) of the Act contemplates a summary determination where there is a dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited.

Conclusion: The finding on wilful default could not be sustained without first determining the actual rent payable; the matter therefore required remand for fresh consideration on that aspect.

Issue (ii): Whether a tenant can invoke the machinery for deposit of rent under Section 8(5) without following the prior steps prescribed in Sections 8(2) to 8(4).

Analysis: The statutory procedure under Section 8 is sequential. If the landlord refuses rent, the tenant must first call upon the landlord to specify a bank, then deposit rent in that bank if specified, or remit it by money order if no bank is specified. Only upon refusal of the money order remittance can the tenant approach the Controller under Section 8(5). The tenant had not complied with these mandatory preconditions before seeking permission to deposit rent before the Controller. The statutory manner prescribed had therefore not been followed.

Conclusion: The application under Section 8(5) was not maintainable and its dismissal by the Rent Controller was restored.

Final Conclusion: The revisions were allowed: one matter was remitted for fresh determination of the rent issue, and the other culminated in restoration of the Rent Controller's order rejecting the tenant's request to deposit rent.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a rent control statute prescribes a mandatory sequence for tendering and depositing rent, a tenant must strictly comply with each step before seeking permission to deposit rent, and a dispute regarding the quantum of rent must first be resolved before a finding of wilful default is recorded.

---