JUDGMENT - D. R. DHANUKA, J.:---By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has impugned the order dated 16-1-1989 passed by the Additional District Magistrate with appellate powers under Clause 21 of the Rent Control Order, 1949 in R. C. Appeal No. 270/A/71 (2)/87-88 and order dated 10th May 1989 passed by the same authority in review application preferred by the petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length. The only question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether the appellate authority and the review authority was justified in taking the view that the petitioner was habitual defaulter and permission should be granted to the respondent to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner in respect of the premises in question as contemplated under Clause 13 (3) (ii) of the Rent Control Order, 1949. The Rent Controller had rejected the application of the respondent for grant of such permission. The appellate authority had reversed the order of the Rent Controller and had granted the said permission by his order dated 16th January 1989. 3. It is not disputed that on 23rd October 1983 the agreement was arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent in writing. By the said agreement, the petitioner agreed to pay accumulated arrears of rent in the sum of Rs. 1583/- by 30th April 1984. The said agreement is in the handwriting of petitioner himself. The petitioner defaulted in carrying out his obligation in respect of payment of such amount. The petitioner never forwarded money order to the respondent for the amount of the said arrears. The fact that the petitioner had sent a money order of Rs. 525/- to the respondent some time in December 1984 covering the rent for the period September 1984 to November 1984 is of no consequence in law. The fact remains that the respondent/landlord was required to file a suit for recovery of the said amount. On 27th October 1986 the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur passed a decree in favour of respondent and against the petitioner in C. S. No. 829/1985 directing the petitioner to pay the entire sum of Rs. 1583/- as arrears of rent for the period upto 31st October 1983.. On 27th October 1986 the Court of Small Causes, Nagpur passed a decree in favour of respondent and against the petitioner in C. S. No. 829/1985 directing the petitioner to pay the entire sum of Rs. 1583/- as arrears of rent for the period upto 31st October 1983.. The fact remains that the petitioner did not pay the rent for quite some time and another suit had to be filed by the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent in the Small Causes Court, Nagpur being C. S. No. 828/1985. On 14th November 1986 a decree was passed. In the said suit the amount of rent arrears worked out to Rs. 3150/- and was made payable by instalments at the instance of the petitioner. 4. In my opinion, the finding of fact recorded in the appellate order is more than justified by the relevant material and the evidence on record. The appellate authority could not have disturbed the said order in the review application unnecessarily filed by the petitioner. The order passed by the Rent Controller was obviously erroneous and the appellate authority was justified in allowing the appeal and granting permission to the respondent to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner under Clause 13 (3) (ii) of the Rent Control Order 1949. The petitioner failed and neglected to pay rent for considerable period without any justification. 5. In the result petition fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. *****