Judgment : By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the respondent no. 1, dated 25.2.2004, reversing the order passed by the Rent Controller refusing to grant permission to the respondent landlady under clause 13(3(ii) & (vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses & Rent Control Order 1949. 2] Few facts giving rise to the present petition are stated thus- The respondent is the landlady. The petitioner was allowed to occupy the tenanted premises on the ground floor, of the property owned by the respondent. The respondent had filed an application before the Rent Controller, Nagpur for grant of permission to issue notice to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner under clause 13(3) (i) (ii) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order. Respondent pleaded that she required the suit premises for her bonafide occupation. It was the case of the respondent that the petitioner had paid rent only upto 31.3.1981 and had failed to deposit the rent thereafter. In a civil suit filed by the respondent, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner had deposited the amount of Rs.5619 towards occupation charges. This amount covered the amount upto end of 1985 and the petitioner again failed to pay the rent inspite of a direction by the civil court. It was pleaded in the application that the petitioner was in arrears from April 1985 till the date of filing of the application in the first week of December, 1986. 3] The Rent Controller on an appreciation of the evidence on record rejected the application filed by the respondent land lady on all the three grounds. The Rent Controller observed that the petitioner was depositing the amount of rent in the court where the recovery suit was pending and there was nothing to show that the landlady had received the rent under protest. The Rent Controller held that the landlady did not require the premises for bonafide occupation. By the operative part of the order, however, the petitioner was directed to pay the arrears of rent to the respondent with simple interest @ 9% p.a., within a period of 3 months, failing which, according to the Rent Controller the respondent was entitled to terminate the tenancy of the tenant under clause 13(3)(i) of the Rent Control Order. Being aggrieved by the said order, the landlady, preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Nagpur. Being aggrieved by the said order, the landlady, preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Nagpur. The Additional Collector, Nagpur by the impugned order dated 25.2.2004 reversed the findings recorded by the Rent Controller on the ground of habitual default. The findings as regards the bonafide need of the landlady was however, confirmed. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 25.2.2004 by filing the instant writ petition. 4] Mrs. Jyoti Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Additional Collector, Nagpur seriously erred in reversing the finding recorded by the Rent Controller and in holding that the petitioner was a habitual defaulter. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for branding a person as a habitual defaulter it was necessary to show that the person had a mental attitude to commit default and in the instant, this factor was absent. The learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the respondent had not pleaded about the manner of payment of rent in the application and no schedule was annexed to the application. It is then submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the initial burden to prove the habitual default lies on the landlady and the Additional Collector could not have relied only on the admissions of the petitioner to hold that the petitioner was a habitual defaulter. In the suit filed by the landlady in the year 1983, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the rent of 47 months was paid and this clearly showed that the petitioner did not have an attitude to commit default. The learned counsel for the petitioner then relied on the decision reported in 1990 Mh.L.J. Page 1284 [Rajkumar Ramavtar Chourasia ..vs..Mathew Cherian] and 2004 BCI 693 [Mohd. Alsanullah Haji Mohd. Masoom ..vs.. Ramesh Dattatraya Ithape & others] to substantiate her submission. 5] Shri B.N. Mohta, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is a well settled position of law that it is not necessary to file a schedule along with the application. He relied on the decision reported in 1981 Mh.L.J. 901 [Lilabai Gopalkrishna Pratinidhi ..vs.. Premlatabai Raghunath] to substantiate his submission. The learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that the rent was not paid by the respondent since April 1981 and the respondent was required to institute a suit against the petitioner in the year 1983, 1986 and 1989. He relied on the decision reported in 1981 Mh.L.J. 901 [Lilabai Gopalkrishna Pratinidhi ..vs.. Premlatabai Raghunath] to substantiate his submission. The learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that the rent was not paid by the respondent since April 1981 and the respondent was required to institute a suit against the petitioner in the year 1983, 1986 and 1989. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that though the previous suit was filed in the year 1983 and the petitioner had deposited the rent of 47 months in view of the decree in the civil suit, the petitioner had further failed to pay the rent since April 1985 and again a suit came to be instituted against the petitioner. This according to the respondent clearly shows that there was a mental attitude on the part of the petitioner to commit default. The learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decisions reported in 1981 Mh.L.J. Page 446 [Nathuji Narayanrao Udapure ..vs.. Narendra Vasanjibhai Thakkar & another], 1996 2 Mh.L.J. 1035 [Surendrakumar Ambalal Khatri ..vs.. Subhash Sitaram Zanwar], 1993 (3) Bom. CR Page 468 [Suresh s/o Nathuji Bangilwar ..vs.. Arjun s/o Kanhuji Gonnade] and 2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 372 [Sushilabai w/o Narayan Raut & othes ..vs.. Navnit s/o Bhojraj Lakhotiya] to substantiate his submission. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that inpsite of filing of the suit for arrears of rent, in the year 1983, the petitioner did not mend his ways to pay rent regularly and hence subsequent suits were also instituted. According to the learned counsel for the respondent the findings recorded by the Additional Collector are pure findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of material on record and hence the same need not be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 6] I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and also perused the evidence tendered by the parties along with the impugned order and the order passed by the Rent Controller. It is necessary to note that the order of the Rent Controller is extremely cryptic as the Rent Controller had not discussed the evidence and had not recorded the reasons for rejecting the application under clause 13(3)(ii) and (vi). It is necessary to note that the order of the Rent Controller is extremely cryptic as the Rent Controller had not discussed the evidence and had not recorded the reasons for rejecting the application under clause 13(3)(ii) and (vi). The only ground for rejecting the application under clause 13(3) (ii) of the Rent Control Order was that the tenant was depositing the amount of rent in the court where the recovery suit was pending and the land lady did not prove whether she had received the rent under protest. The Rent controller could not have rejected the application under clause 13(3)(ii) on this ground. There was no question of recording any protest as the land lady had herself filed the suit for recovery of amount of rent / damages and it is not disputed that the rent was paid by the petitioner in the court after the institution of these suits. 7] The appellate authority however, considered the evidence tendered by the parties and held that the landlady was entitled to grant of permission under clause 13(3)(ii) of the Rent Control Order. The Additional Collector observed that the rent was required to be recovered through the decree of the civil court twice and one suit was pending before the civil court. These facts according to the Additional Collector were admitted by the petitioner in his cross examination. According to the Additional Collector, these admissions weighed against the petitioner. The Additional Collector rightly held that it was not necessary for the respondent to file the copies of the judgment and decrees of the court as the petitioner had himself admitted in his cross examination that the rent was paid in the court after the suits were instituted. It is necessary to consider the admissions of the petitioner in this case. He had categorically admitted in his cross examination that in the year 1983 and 1986, the suits for recovery of rent were filed against him. He also admitted that in the year 1989 again the suit for recovery of rent was filed. He then admitted in his cross examination that all the three suits were decreed and the money was deposited. He then stated in his cross examination that in the suit pending against him, he had started paying rent. He also admitted that in the year 1989 again the suit for recovery of rent was filed. He then admitted in his cross examination that all the three suits were decreed and the money was deposited. He then stated in his cross examination that in the suit pending against him, he had started paying rent. These admissions clearly shatter the claim of the petitioner that he was not a habitual defaulter and there was no mental attitude to commit default. On the admissions of the petitioner, it is clear that the landlady was required to institute at least three suits against the petitioner and the petitioner had deposited the rent after the suits were decreed. It is a well settled position of law that filing of schedule is not necessary and in this case, the filing of schedule all the more not necessary as it was the case of the respondent that the rent was not paid by the petitioner since April 1981 continuously and in the trial court the arrears of rent to the extent of Rs.5619/- were deposited. The application further recited that the rent was not paid thereafter from April 1984. Hence it was clear from the pleadings and the evidence tendered by the parties that there was default since April 1981 till the suits were filed against the petitioner. In the facts of the case the filing of the schedule was not necessary as there was continuous non payment of rent from April 1981. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgments relied by the petitioner would have no applicability, though the judgments relied by the respondent supports the case of the respondent to a great extent. The approach of the learned Additional Collector in dealing with the matter was just and reasonable. In fact the Rent controller had not discussed the evidence on record and had rejected the application under clause 13(3) (ii) on unsustainable reasons. The order of the Additional Collector, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. 8] In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.