PASAYAT, J. ( 1 ) IN this application a tenant has questioned legality of the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, first class-cum-House Rent Controller, Berhampur (in short, the 'controller') and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganjam, Berhampur (in short, the 'cjm') in a proceeding under Ss. 5 and 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act, 1967 (in short, the 'act' ). ( 2 ) OPPOSITE party No. 1 Smt. Konchada Jayadevi (hereinafter referred to as the 'landlady') initiated the proceeding inter alia on the ground that the tenant (petitioner herein) was in occupation of the case house on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- which was fixed several years back; the case house is situated in a busy locality and business center; the fair rent of the case house considering the locality, size of the case house and the amenities available would be at least Rs. 1,500/- per month; therefore it would be meet and proper to fix the fair rent at Rs. 1,500/ - per month; she belongs to trading community and her two major sons were not properly employed; she intended to start a cloth business there along with her sons; the tenant was irregular in the matter of payment of rent; after July, 1981 he did not pay rent continuously for three months in spite of several demands and was a willful habitual defaulter. In essence the prayers of the landlady were for fixation of fair rent, eviction of the tenant on the grounds of bona fide requirement, and willful default to pay the rent agreed upon. The tenant filed his objections stating that the house was taken on lease from one K. Rajeswar Rao Subudhi on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-; security deposit of Rs. 4,000/- was accepted on an oral understanding that the same will be refunded at the time of vacating the house; the tenanted premises did not have any amenities and in fact was a single room and part of a very old house requiring major repairs and heavy investments; he had invested Rs. 300/-; security deposit of Rs. 4,000/- was accepted on an oral understanding that the same will be refunded at the time of vacating the house; the tenanted premises did not have any amenities and in fact was a single room and part of a very old house requiring major repairs and heavy investments; he had invested Rs. 25,000/- for making repairs; there was no default in payment of the house rent; but it is the landlady who sometimes granted consolidated receipts in acknowledgment of the rents received; there was no bona fide requirement by the sons of the landlady, who have got their residence-cum-shop house in Big Bazar, Main Road of Berhampur and the landlady did not require the house at all; and since he did not accede to the request of the landlady to enhance the rent the application for eviction has been filed mala fide. ( 3 ) THE Controller formulated three points for determination and held that the landlady had succeeded in proving willful default and bona fide requirement. The fair rent was fixed at Rs. 350/ -. Accordingly the tenant was directed to deliver vacant possession of the house within three months from the date of the order. The tenant assailed the order before the learned C. J. M. , who affirmed the conclusions of the Controller. The tenant therefore has filed this writ application. ( 4 ) THE stand of the petitioner in this writ application is two-fold. Firstly, the application for eviction was filed on 18-12-1981 on which date there was no default, as the admitted rent up to October, 1981 had been paid on 17-11-1981; and there being no default on the date of filing of the application, the plea of willful default as raised by the landlady should not have been accepted. Secondly, bona fide requirement has not been established by the landlady; in any event by registered deed of partition dated 23-10-1986 the case house had fallen to the share of one K. Mohan Rao, and as such opposite party No. 1 who had filed the application as landlady had ceased to lie the owner; and in view of this subsequent event the order of eviction should be set aside. ( 5 ) THE landlady's stand on the other hand is that acceptance of rent for several months at a time does not amount to condonation, and merely because on the date of filing of the application there was no arrear, it cannot be held that the landlady is precluded from seeking eviction. So far as bona fide requirement of the house is concerned, it is urged that subsequent events cannot be taken note of. It is pleaded that the rent paid by the tenant is very low and the landlady had not asked for modification of the fair rent fixed by the authorities below, since order of eviction had been passed; the fair rent was fixed at Rs. 350/- in 1984 and considering the fact that the rents fetched by similarly situated premises are much higher than the amount quantified increase is warranted. ( 6 ) THE contentions need careful consideration. So far as the question of willful default is concerned, it is not in dispute that by the time the application for eviction was filed the arrears had been cleared. S. 7 (2) of the Act prescribes that if the Controller is satisfied, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application to the effect 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, 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. Sub-Sec. (3) of the said Section impetrates remittance of arrear rent by the tenant as admitted by him up to the date of such remittance to the landlord or deposit the same with the Controller, failing which he shall not be entitled to contest the proceedings. Proviso to Sub-Sec. (2) makes it clear that if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant's default to pay or tender rent was not willful, he may give the tenant a reasonable time not exceeding fifteen days to pay or tender the rent due from him. Proviso to Sub-Sec. (2) makes it clear that if the Controller is satisfied that the tenant's default to pay or tender rent was not willful, he may give the tenant a reasonable time not exceeding fifteen days to pay or tender the rent due from him. If the payment is made within the stipulated time the application shall be rejected. In other words, willful default is the sine qua non for an order of eviction, where eviction is sought for on such ground. While determining the question of willful default, the conduct of the landlord in receiving the rent offered belatedly is of crucial importance. For an inference to be raised regarding existence of an implied agreement between the landlord and the tenant as regards acceptance of rent of several months at one time, it is not necessary that the rent should be paid and accepted at a fixed period of interval. If the landlord receives rent under protest and warns the tenant to be regular in payment in future, he cannot be assumed to have agreed to a modified agreement in that regard. But if he without any objection and without letting the tenant know his thought process, continues to receive rent at intervals of several months, he cannot be allowed to spring a surprise on the tenant by suddenly starting a proceeding for eviction. Having lulled the tenant in the belief that things were all right, the landlord is under a duty to serve him with a notice demanding regular payment if he wished to insist upon it. In the case at hand, the facts as found by the authorities below clearly establish that there was acceptance of rent for several months at a time on many occasions. Therefore, the tenant is on terre firma in his stand that acceptance of the rent for several months belatedly obliterated the default, if any, and there was condonation. Our view is supported by the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Rashik Lal v. Shah Gokuldas, AIR 1989 SC 920 and in S. Sundaram Pillai v. V. R. Pattabiraman, AIR 1985 SC 582 . Therefore, the conclusion that there was wilful default on the part of the petitioner is indefensible. Our view is supported by the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Rashik Lal v. Shah Gokuldas, AIR 1989 SC 920 and in S. Sundaram Pillai v. V. R. Pattabiraman, AIR 1985 SC 582 . Therefore, the conclusion that there was wilful default on the part of the petitioner is indefensible. ( 7 ) SO far as the plea relating to so-called partition in 1986 is concerned, it was not pleaded before learned C. J. M. , though by the time appeal was disposed of the partition deed was in existence. No reason has been shown as to why this plea was not taken before the appellate authority. However, we find that a specific ground has been taken in the writ application in paragraph 23 about partition and cessation of right, title and interest of the landlady. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the landlady. Certified copy of the registered partition deed No. 4385 dated 23-10-1986 was filed before us. But we do not think it necessary to deal with the plea. As observed by the Supreme Court in Gulabbai v. Nalin Narsi Vohra, AIR 1991 SC 1760 , subsequent events can be considered by the appellate forums, particularly relating to availability of alternative accommodation and cessation of title. In our considered opinion, the plea should be considered afresh by the learned C. J. M. We permit the petitioner to place the relevant materials before the learned C. J. M. who shall grant due opportunity to the landlady to lead rebuttal evidence, if any. ( 8 ) COMING to the plea relating to adequacy of rent raised by the landlady, we find substantial force. The forums below had accepted the prayer for eviction. The fair rent was fixed in 1984 at Rs. 350/ -. Judicial notice can be taken note of the fact that rents are increasing by leaps and bounds. Considering the locality of the case premises, we are of the view that a rent of Rs. 750/- (seven hundred fifty) per month would be reasonable. However, this rate shall be applicable from 1st of May, 1992. Up to that date, the rent shall be Rs. 350/- as fixed by the Controller. The order of the learned C. J. M. (Annexure 1) is set aside and the matter is remitted back for reconsideration. The writ application is disposed of with observations and directions indicated above. No costs. Up to that date, the rent shall be Rs. 350/- as fixed by the Controller. The order of the learned C. J. M. (Annexure 1) is set aside and the matter is remitted back for reconsideration. The writ application is disposed of with observations and directions indicated above. No costs. ( 9 ) G. B. PATNALK, J. :- I agree. Order accordingly.