JUDGMENT S. B. Sanyal, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. According to him it has been the case of the plaintiff-respondent that there was an express contract between the parties for Payment of rent every six months. No document however, has been produced in the Court below, and this plea was not accepted by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that there could be an implied agreement between the parties also to show that the rent was payable at the convenience of the tenants, and this can be called out from the trend of payment of rent and its acceptance by the landlord without any notice to the tenants to be regular in future in payment of rent. He has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Rashik Lal and others Vs. Shah Gokuldas (A. I. R 1989 Supreme Court 920). 2. The Courts below have considered the theory of implied contract also by reference to the evidence of the tenants and has concluded that it had been the practice to pay the rent by the tenants by the first week of the next month and at time, by the second week of the next month. There had, however, been some delayed payment of rent, and from this, the court below concluded that there cannot be an implied contract of payment of rent at the convenience of the tenants. In short, the Court below found that there was neither an express contract nor an implied contract of payment of rent at the convenience of the tenants. 3. So for as the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, my Lord L. M. Sharma, J. was considering Clause 13 of C. P, of Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control order, which provided that the tenant must be" habitually in arrears with the rent" for being defaulter. This is not a provision in the Bihar Buildings Control Act, which requires that a tenant becomes a defaulter on non-payment of two months rent. This is not a provision in the Bihar Buildings Control Act, which requires that a tenant becomes a defaulter on non-payment of two months rent. My Lord has also notice" that the requirement of "habitually in nears with the rent" is not to be found in "other statutes where mere non payment of rent for a particular period has been provided as adequate ground for eviction of the tenant," The theory, therefore, of rent payable at the convenience of the tenants is inapplicable to the Bihar Building Control Act, for maintaining an appeal against eviction. This appeal is therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.