9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "arrears of rent" to include decreed arrears of rent. 2. Determination of whether the appellant committed wilful default. Detailed Analysis: 1. The court analyzed the term "arrears of rent" in the context of the Control of Rent Act. It was established that rent, once unpaid, constitutes arrears regardless of whether a decree has been passed for its recovery. The passing of a decree does not alter the nature of the unpaid rent. The court concluded that the term "arrears of rent" encompasses both undecreed and decreed arrears of rent, emphasizing that unpaid rent remains in arrears until settled, irrespective of legal actions taken. 2. The court examined the concept of wilful default in the case. It was determined that the appellant's failure to pay the decreed arrears of rent within the specified time frame constituted wilful default. The court clarified that wilful default does not require a malicious intent but rather deliberate or intentional non-compliance with payment obligations. The appellant's intentional decision not to pay the decreed arrears, regardless of the motive behind it, was considered wilful default. The court referenced legal precedents to define wilful default as intentional, voluntary, or knowingly failing to fulfill obligations. 3. The court dismissed arguments that the appellant's past regular rent payments or the respondent's initial refusal of money orders mitigated the wilful default. It was emphasized that the appellant's history of timely payments did not excuse the deliberate default in this instance. Additionally, the respondent's refusal of money orders did not absolve the appellant of the obligation to pay the decreed arrears as per the court's decree. The court upheld the lower appellate court's decision, affirming that the appellant's intentional non-payment of decreed arrears constituted wilful default, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
|
