JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioner is the landlord. Opposite party No. 1 is the tenant. He was inducted into the disputed house as a monthly, tenant, according to English calendar, on a monthly rental of Rs. 401/- for a term of one year from 7-8-1962. By an agreement, annexure-1, dated 148.1962, it was stipulated that if the tenant would occupy the premises after 6.8.1963 be would be liable to pay monthly rent at the rate of Re. 451/- payable in advance of each month. The Petitioner filed an application (Annexure-8) for eviction of the tenant, before the House Rent Controller, on 8-2-1969 on three grounds: (i) The tenant regularly fell into arrears of rent and was a willful defaulter, and was liable to be evicted u/s 7(2)(i); (ii) He committed acts of damage As were likely to impair materially the value or utility of the house as prescribed in Section 7(2)(iii); and (iii) The land lady Petitioner required the house in good faith for the occupation of her husband as prescribed in Section 7(4). 2. The tenant filed written statement (annexure-9) denying the aforesaid allegations. 3. Both the House Rent Controller and the A.D.M. (Judicial), the Appellate authority, rejected the application for eviction overruling all the three grounds. The writ application has been filed by the landlord under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the House Rent Controller (Annexure-2), dated 25.11.1970, and of the Appellate authority (Annexure-3) dated 1-5-1971. 4. Mr. R. Mohanty, for the Petitioner, rightly did not assail the concurrent findings that the Petitioner failed to establish that she required the house in good faith for her own occupation, and that the tenant caused damages so as to materially affect the value of the tenement. The only point pressed before us by the Petitioner was that the opposite party fell into arrears of rent and was a willful defaulter, and therefore, liable to be evicted from the disputed house. A chart was filed before us by Mr. R. Mohanty showing how the tenant regularly fell into arrears of rent. Mr. D. Mohanty, for opposite party No. 1 does not assail its correctness. For understanding at a glance the chart is reproduced below: Sl. No. Month for which rent is payable. under Due date of Was the agreement payment plus 30 days. Date when rent actually paid. 1. R. Mohanty showing how the tenant regularly fell into arrears of rent. Mr. D. Mohanty, for opposite party No. 1 does not assail its correctness. For understanding at a glance the chart is reproduced below: Sl. No. Month for which rent is payable. under Due date of Was the agreement payment plus 30 days. Date when rent actually paid. 1. 7.10.l967 to 6.11.1967 6-11-1907 17-11-1967 2. 7.11.1967 to 6.12.1967 6-12-1967 19-12-1967 3. 7.12.1967 to 6.1.1968 6-1-1968 15-1-1963 4. 7.1.1968 to 6.2.1968 6-2-1968 12-2-1968 5. 7.2.1968 to 6.3.1968 6.3.1968 22-3-1968 6. 7.3.1968 to 6.4.1968 6-4-1968 02-5-1968 7. 7.4.1968 to 6.5.1968 6.5.1968 20-5-1968 8. 7.5.1968 to 6.7.1968 6-7-1968 15-7-1968 9. 7.7.1968 to 6.8.1968 6-8-1968 21-8-1968 10. 7.8.1908 to 6.9.1968 6.9.1968 21-9-1968 11. 7.9.1968 to 6.10.1968 6-10-1968 15-10-1968 12. 7.10.1968 to 6.11.1968 6-11-1968 15-11-1968 13. 7.11.1968 to 6.12.1968 6-12-1968 14-12-1968 14. 7.12.1968 to 6.1.1969 6-1-1969 20-1-969 5. It is contended by Mr. R. Mohanty that under the agreement the tenant was liable to pay rent, in advance, of each month. To illustrate for the month 7-10-1967 to 6-11-1967, the tenant was to pay the monthly rent, at the latest, on 6-10-1967. Under Section 7(2)(i) of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (hereinafter to be referred to as ?the Act? the tenant is entitled to a period of thirty days where the payment of rent is to be made in accordance with an agreement. Here, the due date of payment at the latest being 6-10-1967, the tenant would he fulfilling his obligation of payment in time, without falling into arrears, if the rent had been paid at the latest on 6-11-1967. In fact, however, the rent was paid on 17-11-1967. In this way, a hare reference to columns 3 and 4 of the chart would indicate that right from October. 1967, till end of January, 1969, the tenant never paid rent in time and regularly defaulted. The default being habitual, the tenant was a willful defaulter. 6. Mr. D. Mohanty. In fact, however, the rent was paid on 17-11-1967. In this way, a hare reference to columns 3 and 4 of the chart would indicate that right from October. 1967, till end of January, 1969, the tenant never paid rent in time and regularly defaulted. The default being habitual, the tenant was a willful defaulter. 6. Mr. D. Mohanty. on the other hand, contends that the due date of payment of rent for the month 6-10-1967 to 7.11.1967 would he 7-11-1967 on the expiry of that month, and if the tenant pays rent on any date prior to 6-11-1967, he would not be in arrears, that is to say, if the tenant Pays the rent by 5-11-1967, he would be paying the rent for the month 7.10.1967 to 6-11-1967 in advance, and if thirty days are added thereto as prescribed in Section 7(2)(i); it would be within time if the rent is paid by 5-12-1967. The rent, in fact, having been paid on 17.11-1967, the tenant was not in arrears, and examining thus the tenant was never in arrears for any month. Those contentions require a careful examination. 7. It would be appropriate at this stage to extract the material terms of the agreement, Annexure-1. They are: (1) That the second party shall occupy the scheduled premises As a monthly tenant at will under the first party according to the English calender on 8 monthly rental of Rs. 401/- Rs. four hundred and one only) for a term of one yea from 7-8-1962. (2) That the second party shall pay the rent of the premises to the first party regularly in advance for each month and shall obtain receipt for the same from the first party failing which the second party shall be liable to pay damage at the rate of 6% per annum on the arrear dues. (3) That the second party having agreed to occupy the premises for one year from 7-8-1962 on a monthly rental of Rs. 401/- and if the second party wants to occupy the said premises after 6-8-1963 he will be liable to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs. 451/- (Rs. four hundred and fifty one only) payable in advance of each month failing which the first party shall have right to re-enter and the second party shall be liable to be evicted therefrom without any notice. 451/- (Rs. four hundred and fifty one only) payable in advance of each month failing which the first party shall have right to re-enter and the second party shall be liable to be evicted therefrom without any notice. It would be clear from the recitals in paragraphs 2 and 3 that the agreement was that the rent of the premises would be regularly paid by the tenant in advance of each month. The question for consideration is as to the meaning of the expression ?rent is to be paid regularly in advance for each month? in Clauses (2) and (3) of Annexure-1. 8. The usual practice is that a monthly tenant occupies the house for a month, and pays the rent after expiry of the month. The house belongs to the landlord, and in consideration of his parting with possession of the house for occupation of the tenant, the latter pays rent As quid pro quo. Though this is the usual practice, it is open to the parties to enter in to an agreement prescribing that the quid pro quo, in the shape of rent, would be paid by the tenant before he is allowed occupation of the house. Take for Instance a case where the landlord tells the tenant that unless the latter pays the rent of every month in advance he would not be let into possession. If the tenant agrees to such a term, ?payment in advance? would mean that if the tenant is to occupy the house from 1st of February, be is to pay rent at the latest on 31st of January Payment of rent during the currency of the month of February cannot, be construed as payment of rent in advance for the month of February. If payment is made during the currency of the month, it would mean that the tenant is in occupation of the house for some days without payment of rent. If the house is occupied even for a day, without earlier payment of rent, then the payment cannot be said to have been made in advance. The unit of the tenancy is a month, and when the payment of rent is to be made in advance for a month, no single day of the month would be allowed to the tenant for occupation without payment of rent earlier. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Mr. The unit of the tenancy is a month, and when the payment of rent is to be made in advance for a month, no single day of the month would be allowed to the tenant for occupation without payment of rent earlier. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Mr. D. Mohanty that payment of rent on any day, during the currency of a month, would amount to ?payment of rent in advance?. 9. Reliance is placed by Mr. D. Mohanty on the meaning of the word ?advance? in Whartton?s Law Lexicon, 14th Edition. One of the meanings relied upon by him is ?money paid before it is due?. This meaning is in consonance with the construction given by us. If payment of rent for a month is to be made in advance, the money would fall due at the latest before the month commences. So, the due date for payment of money would always be prior to the commencement, and not during the currency of the month. No direct decision has been cited on either side. London and Westminster Loan and Discount Company v. London and North Western Railway Company (1893) 2 Q.B.D. 49 would, however, throw some light. In that case, by an agreement in writing, dated July 15, 1891, the Defendants let to one Reuben Tew a house, upon a yearly tenancy, to commence from July. 24, 1891, at a rent of 90 as per annum payable quarterly on the usual quarter days, and always if required a quarter in advance. The first payment, being for two thirds of a quarter of the said yearly rent, to be made if required in advance on the 24th of July, 1891. Tew entered into possession under the agreement. On July 1, 1892, be executed a bill of sale of his goods upon the premises to the Plaintiffs. In November Tew being in default under the bill of sale, the Plaintiff took possession of the goods and instructed an auctioneer to sell them upon December 8. On the morning of the sale, the Defendants demanded from Tew the sum of ?44. Section 11, d.8, being one quarter?s rent due Michaelmas, 1892, and in arrear, and a further quarter?s rent in advance which would in the ordinary course have been payable at Christmas, and threatened immediate distress if the money was not paid forthwith. On the morning of the sale, the Defendants demanded from Tew the sum of ?44. Section 11, d.8, being one quarter?s rent due Michaelmas, 1892, and in arrear, and a further quarter?s rent in advance which would in the ordinary course have been payable at Christmas, and threatened immediate distress if the money was not paid forthwith. The Plaintiffs in order to prevent interruption of the sale paid the money demanded under protest, and then brought an action in the county Court to recover back ?.22 s.10 the amount of the quarter? s rent demanded in advance. In the background of these facts, German J. said: "It seems to me that the true effect of such an agreement is that the rent of each quarter is always due in advance whether a demand be made or not..."and Vaughan Williams J. observed thus: It seems to me that the intention of the parties was that the rent should always be due at the commencement of each quarter. 9. We now proceed to examine the case with reference to Section 7(2)(i) of the Act. It runs thus: (7)(1) xxx xxx xxx xxx (2) If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied: (i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due from him in respect of the house within thirty days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of the tenancy with the landlord for payment of rent or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable...he shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the house, and if the Controller is not so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application: Provided that in any case falling under Clause (i) if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant?s default to payor tender rent was not willful, he may give the tenant a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days, to payor tender the rent due from him to the landlord up to the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or tender the application shall be rejected. In this case, there is an agreement of tenancy (Annexure-1). In this case, there is an agreement of tenancy (Annexure-1). Section 7(2)(i) requires that the tenant is to pay rent within thirty days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy. No specific date for payment has been fixed in the agreement of tenancy. But the agreement says that the tenant has the obligation of making payment of rent in advance. Thus, for the month of February, the tenant shall have to pay the rent on any date in the month of January and at the latest, by 31st of January. Even in a case where there is no specific date fixed in the agreement, the term ?to pay in advance? takes within its sweep the further term that the payment is to be made at the latest on the day immediately proceeding the commencement of the month of the tenancy that is to say, on the last day of the previous month. A statutory privilege has been conferred by Section 7(2)(i) upon the tenant that he can pay the rent within thirty days of the date so fixed in the agreement, that is to say, within thirty days of the date proceeding the commencement of the month of tenancy in this case. Applying the aforesaid principle the tenant was to pay the rent for the month 7-10-1967 to 6-10-1967, on 6-11-1967, and so on, as indicated in column 3 of the chart. He, however, regularly paid the rent only after the due date as would be found from Column 4, and was regularly in arrears in respect of each month. Thus for fourteen months as we find from col. 1 of the chart, the tenant fell into arrears for each month though the entire amount has been paid. The default is habitual. Where the default is habitual, it is willful. 10. It was contended by Mr. D. Mohanty that as the landlord did not object at any stage to accept rent beyond the due date the same has been condoned, and the tenant cannot be said to be a willful defaulter. There is no substance in this contention. The landlord parts with possession of his house for occupation of the tenant. When the tenant pays rent after the due date, he has no other alternative but to accept the same. There is no substance in this contention. The landlord parts with possession of his house for occupation of the tenant. When the tenant pays rent after the due date, he has no other alternative but to accept the same. Otherwise be cannot get the money unless be files a suit in Civil Court for recovery of his dues. The landlord can accept the money, and at the same time can ask for eviction of the tenant on grounds that he is in arrears of rent, and is a willful defaulter. No estoppel is created against the landlord for acceptance of rent. In a series of decisions of this Court, commencing from Menakarani Hazra v. Mohendar Singh Jaggi 34 C.L.T. 277 this position of the law half been clarified. In the facts and circumstances of this case the tenant is a willful defaulter. 11. Atone stage, the learned A.D.M. (Judicial) observed as follows: The Appellant?s husband (p.w. 1) says that usually their Gumasta goes to the tenant and collects the rent dues. This is an error of record as would appear from the deposition of p.w. 1 (Annexure-5). He says: My Gumasta realises rent by going to, the house of tenants. At times tenants come to our house to pay rent. It is not the system that my Gumasta realises rent always by going to the tenants. The learned A.D.M. (Judicial) should not have omitted this important portion in the evidence and distorted it. The obligation is of the tenant to payor tender the rent. If he wants to absolve himself from such obligation, he must plead and prove that there was an agreement that the rent is not payable until the tenant is approached by the landlord. No such case has been proved by the tenant. At any rate, from the deposition of p.w. 1 no such admission is to be found. The error of law committed by the House Rent Controller and the A.D.M. (Judicial) is apparent on the face of the record. 12. On the aforesaid analysis, Annexures 2 and 3, dated 25-11-1970 and 1.5.19,1 respectively, are liable to be quashed. A writ of certiorari be accordingly issued. 13. In the result the application for eviction is allowed. Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to put the landlord in possession within one month from the date of this order. 12. On the aforesaid analysis, Annexures 2 and 3, dated 25-11-1970 and 1.5.19,1 respectively, are liable to be quashed. A writ of certiorari be accordingly issued. 13. In the result the application for eviction is allowed. Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to put the landlord in possession within one month from the date of this order. The writ application is allowed as indicated above, but in the circumstances, without costs. K.B. Panda, J. 14. I agree.