TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (9) TMI 1085
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....949. The question for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the High Court was justified in interfering with the findings of the Appellate Court under the Control order? The respondent-landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller under Section 13(3) (ii), (iii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order seeking permission to determine the tenancy of the appellant, inter alia on the ground that the tenant is a habitual defaulter and has sub-let the premises and further, the landlord needs the premises for bona fide use. The Controller, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties formulated five issues and came to the conclusion that the tenant is a habitual defaulter; the tenant has sub-let the prem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sent. The learned Single Judge also came to hold that the default rent for the period September 1984 to November 1984 was paid in December only after the landlord obtained Distress Warrant from the Civil Court and not on his own, and therefore, the conclusion of the Appellate Authority under the Control Order is, on the face of it, erroneous. So far as the finding of sub-letting is concerned, the learned Single Judge considered the so-called agreement between the tenant and the Singer/Merit Company, and on construction of the terms of agreement it was found that the agreement though nomenclatured as a consignment dealership, but is nothing but a subletting, particularly when the tenant/respondent stays at Dombivali and it is the company wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emise and such possession must be backed by some consideration. In support of the aforesaid contention the learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Dipak Banerjee v. Lilavati Chakraborty [1987]3SCR680 , Jagan Nath (deceased) through LRs. v. Chander Bhan and Ors. AIR1988SC1362 , Gopal Saran v. Salyanarayana (1989) SCC 56, Delhi Stationers and Printers v. Rajendra Kumar AIR1990SC1208 and United Bank of India v. Cooks and Kelvey Properties (P) Limited AIR1995SC380 . So far as the question of habitual default is concerned, Mr. Verma contends that the rent for the months of September to November 1984 had been paid in December 1984 and Clause 9 of the agreement of tenancy between the appellant and respondent entitles the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Judge of the High Court was fully justified in interfering with the conclusions of the Appellate Authority, and as such, there is no error so far as the orders of the High Court are concerned. According to Mr. Mohta, a bare reading of the judgment of the learned Single Judge would indicate the apparent errors found by the High Court with the Appellate Order of the District Collector, and therefore, the High Court was well within its jurisdiction in interfering with the same. 5. In view of the rival submissions we have carefully scrutinised the orders of the Controller, that of the Appellate Authority under the Control Order and the order of the learned Single Judge which has been affirmed by the Division Bench. Undoubtedly, in a proceedin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a position to hold that the High Court exceeded the parameters prescribed for interference with the findings of an inferior Tribunal. Under Clause 13(3) (ii) Controller has to be satisfied that the tenant is habitually in errors with the rent. The expression "habitually" would obviously cannot some act of continuity. Under the Lease Deed dated 8-4-1982 between the landlord and the tenant Clause 4 made it obligatory for the tenant to pay the rent before 10th day of each English Calender month, and under Clause 9 in the event of arrears of rent over 3 months is not paid then the landlord was entitled to give notice and then if the matter is not settled within one month from the date of the notice then the landlord is entitled to t....