P. K. SHYAMSUNDAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a classic instance of a man insatiably indulging in the hospitality of an inn-keeper but reciprocating only with the recalcitrant attitude of neglecting his obligations. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is a lodger in a lodge called kalyan lodge located inseshadripuram area, a prime locality of Bangalore. Ofcourse he appears to have been there right from the year 1986 was paying a tariff of Rs. 56/- per month and according to the inn-keeper he went on paying at the flat rate of Rs. 567- per month even when the rates of occupancy stood revised once in 1973 and again in 1979 by the competent authority under the Rent Control Act. It is said in 1973 the room rents were hiked to Rs. 125/- per month and in 1979 the inn-keeper became entitled to collect at the rate of Rs. 18/- per day from each of his lodgers. Despite this steep hike in tariff, it is said the petitioner went on paying at the flat rate of Rs. 56/- as he was accustomed to right from the year 1962 when he became an incumbent of the lodging house. ( 3 ) NOT unnaturally, the lodge owner went to the competent authority solicitingan order of ejecting him from the lodging house on two grounds:i) irregular payment of the tariff,ii) the room in the occupancy of the petitioner being required for renovation. ( 4 ) AS a step-in-aid he issued a legal notice on 3-2-1981 calling upon the petitionerto take way because he had turned into an extremely recalcitrant lodger who was not paying what was justly due from him but even so continued to occupy the room in question despite the clamour for possession by the lodge owner. It would appear the said notice elicited an untenable reply and, therefore, it is, the lodge owner had to go to the competent authority to seek ejection of the petitioner from the room in question on the grounds referred to (supra ). ( 5 ) THE competent authority, i. e. , deputy commissioner, passed an order afterhearing both sides holding that the lodge owner was entitled to eject the petitioner for non-payment of just dues and thereafter the order was affirmed in appeal by the divisional commissioner. ( 5 ) THE competent authority, i. e. , deputy commissioner, passed an order afterhearing both sides holding that the lodge owner was entitled to eject the petitioner for non-payment of just dues and thereafter the order was affirmed in appeal by the divisional commissioner. The learned divisional commissioner in what appears to be a fairly reasoned order finds:"in the instant case, the appellant has been consistently dictating this own terms to the lodge owner and wants to pay according to the rates decided by himself. Therefor, the lower court was absolutely right in coming to the conclusion that the appellant before this court was habitually in arrears of payment of rates and therefore the lower court was right in ordering eviction of the appellant. "the order of the competent authority and the appellate authority are now challenged in this writ petition. ( 6 ) THE main plan of attack is that the petitioner having at all times been paying atrates lesser than the fair rent fixed by the competent authority could not be said to be a person who was irregular in making payments. Reliance in this connection is placed on the plain language of Section 37 (c) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act ('the act' for short ). The Section reads:"37. When manager of a hotel or owner of lodging house may recover possession. notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a manager of a hotel or owner of a lodging house shall be entitled to recover possession of the accommodation provided by him to a lodger on obtaining a certificate from the competent authority certifying that (c) the lodger is habitually irregular in making payment of the charges for board, lodging or other service provided in the hotel or lodging house;"inter alia reference may also be made to clause (b) of Section 37 which reads:" (B) the accommodation is reasonably and bona fide required by the owner of the hotel or lodging house, as the case may be, either for his own occupa- tion or for any other cause which may be deemed satisfactory by the competent authority. "it is not denied a legal notice was issued to the petitioner bringing to his notice that he had failed to pay rents at the prevalent rates and had thus proved irregular in payment of rents rendering himself liable for ejection. "it is not denied a legal notice was issued to the petitioner bringing to his notice that he had failed to pay rents at the prevalent rates and had thus proved irregular in payment of rents rendering himself liable for ejection. Later and anent to that notice, I am now told the petitioner had stopped paying whatever rent he was paying to the lodge owner earlier. In other words, he had not only not paid the rents fixed by the competent authority in the year 1981 as demanded in the notice in question, he had completely stopped paying any rents what so ever. With the result this is a case of a lodger who was not just irregular but one who had failed to make any payments (sic) at all. ( 7 ) IF by the operation of law liability towards rent or charges or whatever it maybe was fixed but the lodger insists upon paying something less than the rates fixed by competent authority or makes no payment at all towards lodging charges there is no gain-say in denying that he can certainly be treated as one who is not regular in making payments and worse still he forfeits his right to continue as a lodger. I am not able to appreciate the argument of Mr. Subba rao that total stoppage of payment of lodging rates, however abnormal it may be, such conduct will not put the man into the slot earmarked for one who is irregular in payments, a contingency provided for under Section 37 (c ). ( 8 ) I for one fail to notice this distinction which is without any difference for thisis ? Ease of a lodger who has had the advantage of being given shelter in return for payment according to the tariffs fixed by the lodge owner and in this case the tariff fixed under the law viz. The Rent Control Act. Therefore, if the lodger commits default in payment of lodging charges may be either by paying something less than what he is legitimately due to pay or not paying anything at all which is an extreme case, it cannot then be said that the man who pays only what is convenient to him and thereafter stops paying anything at all, the twain cannot nonetheless be treated as one and the same. If irregular payment of rents can give the lodge owner the right to seek ejection of the unbiquitous lodger who does not believe in performing his obligations, the right to seek ejection of the person who does not pay any rents at all cannot be denied to the lodge owner. The lodger cannot be allowed to say "i am not just irregular in making payments but I am one who will not pay at all, but then you cannot eject me. " the argument only has some novelty but little of merit. The power to seek ejection of a lodger who misconducts himself in the matter of payment of lodging charges is without more available protonto to the lodge owner but the only limitation on this power being that lodge owner cannot himself throw out a dogmatic lodger but has to seek the assistance of the law. Having regard to the concurrent findings of the courts-below, it becomes clear that petitioner is a person who is not merely irregular in making payments but one who admittedly believed in not making any payment at all and, therefore, has clearly forfeited his right to continue in the lodge as a lodger. The finding of fact, as aforesaid manifesting from the stand of the petitioner himself needs little or no further investigation. Even so it being well settled that (sic) question of facts cannot be raised and decided in a writ petition, under Article 226 is a further constraint operating against the petitioner. ( 9 ) THE point urged is thus completely bereft of any merit. I also note the lodgeowner had also asked for possession on grounds of renovation. It is said that all the other rooms in the lodging house had been renovated with the sole exception of the one occupied by the petitioner. In that situation possession claimed on the ground of renovation cannot be resisted. If all was well with the petitioner, I am sure the lodge owner would have had no hesitation to reinduct him after renovation. Ac- cordingly to the memo of calculations filed in this court, it is said the petitioner is still due towards lodge charges in a sum exceeding Rs. 90,000/ -. If that is so, it is less than fair to ask the lodge owner to take back into his fold this troublesome guest. Ac- cordingly to the memo of calculations filed in this court, it is said the petitioner is still due towards lodge charges in a sum exceeding Rs. 90,000/ -. If that is so, it is less than fair to ask the lodge owner to take back into his fold this troublesome guest. ( 10 ) NO other point arises for consideration in this petition and the only pointraised and argued having been rejected, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. --- *** --- .