Arrears of Rent — One Month Period to Cure

Non-payment of rent is the most litigated eviction ground anywhere in India, and the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 treats it not as an instant forfeiture but as a default the tenant is given two clear chances to cure. Section 27(2)(a) first requires a landlord to serve a written demand and wait two months; even if the tenant still fails, the second proviso compels the Court to pass a conditional order giving one further month to pay or deposit the whole arrears before possession can be ordered. This note unpacks the demand notice, the two cure windows, the crucial benefit-once restriction, and how Sections 16, 17 and 45 fit around the arrears machinery. Read it alongside the eviction grounds overview and the Karnataka Rent Act hub.

Where arrears of rent sits in the statutory scheme

Section 27(1) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 opens with a non-obstante clause: notwithstanding any other law or contract, no Court, District Judge or High Court shall pass a decree for recovery of possession in favour of a landlord against a tenant “save as provided in sub-section (2).” Eviction is therefore an exception that the landlord must affirmatively bring within one of the grounds in Section 27(2), clauses (a) to (r). Arrears of rent is the very first ground, clause (a), and it is the only ground that comes with two built-in opportunities for the tenant to defeat the eviction by paying up. The arrears ground cannot be read in isolation — it operates with Section 16 (when rent falls due and the 12% interest on default), Section 17 (deposit of rent with the Controller where the landlord refuses it), and Section 45 (compulsory deposit of arrears and current rent during the pendency of the eviction proceeding). Together these provisions make non-payment a curable default rather than an automatic forfeiture, reflecting the protective, welfare character of rent-control legislation. For the broader menu of grounds, see eviction of a tenant: grounds.

What counts as “arrears” and when rent falls due

Section 16(1) fixes the time of payment: every tenant must pay rent and other charges within the time fixed by contract, or, in the absence of any stipulation, by the fifteenth day of the month next following the month for which it is payable. Default in payment attracts simple interest at twelve per cent per annum from the date the amount became payable. “Arrears” for the purpose of clause (a) is therefore the whole of the rent and “other charges legally recoverable” that has fallen due and remained unpaid — not a notional figure but the contractual or standard rent actually payable. Where the parties have agreed a rent, that agreed rent governs unless and until it is displaced by a fixation of standard rent; the precise meaning of “rent,” “tenant” and “premises” is set out in the definitions note. A tenant who disputes the rate cannot simply withhold payment: the safer course is to deposit under Section 17 and litigate the rate separately, because the arrears ground turns on the rent “last paid or agreed to be paid.”

The demand notice and the first two-month cure window

The trigger for clause (a) is precise. The landlord must establish that “the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent and other charges legally recoverable from him within two months from the date on which a notice of demand for payment” has been served “in the manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.” Three elements must each be satisfied: a written demand for payment; service in the Section 106 manner (which contemplates a notice tendered or sent by post, or affixed to a conspicuous part of the property if other modes fail); and the tenant's failure to pay or tender the whole of the arrears within two clear months of service. A partial payment does not cure the default — the word is “whole.” Conversely, a valid tender within two months extinguishes the ground entirely, so that a suit founded on it must fail. This mirrors the long-settled approach to identically worded provisions: in Mangat Rai v. Kidar Nath (1980 AIR 1709) the Supreme Court treated a timely deposit of the rent with costs and interest as a valid tender that secured the tenant the protective relief the statute intends, emphasising that rent control is social legislation meant to balance landlord and tenant interests rather than to spring forfeitures.

Service in the Section 106 manner — why it matters

Because clause (a) expressly imports Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, defective service is fatal to the arrears ground. Section 106 requires the notice to be in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it, and either sent by post to the party intended to be bound or tendered or delivered personally, or, where that is not practicable, affixed to a conspicuous part of the property. A landlord who cannot prove proper service cannot start the two-month clock running, and the tenant is entitled to have the application dismissed on that short ground alone. The notice need not use any sacramental form, but it must unambiguously demand payment of the arrears; a vague communication or a mere reminder will not do. Courts insist on strict compliance with the statutory conditions because the consequence — loss of a roof or a livelihood — is grave; the Supreme Court has stressed in the Karnataka context that the conditions attaching to each clause of Section 27(2) must be strictly satisfied before eviction can follow.

The second proviso: one month to cure after the order

The heart of this topic is the second proviso to clause (a). It provides that “where in a proceeding for eviction of a tenant on the ground specified in this clause, the tenant is to be evicted, the Court shall make an order directing the tenant to vacate the premises unless he pays to the landlord or deposits into Court within one month of the date of order, an amount calculated at the rate at which it was last paid, for the period for which the arrears of rent and other charges were legally recoverable from him, including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which payment or deposit is made.” The order is therefore conditional, not absolute: the Court “shall” give the tenant one month from the date of the order to clear the entire arrears — computed at the last-paid rate and brought right up to date — and only if the tenant fails to pay or deposit within that month does the direction to vacate take effect. The provision is mandatory in form (“shall make an order directing… unless”), so a Court cannot pass a bare unconditional eviction decree on the arrears ground; it must build in the one-month escape route.

Computing the amount to be paid or deposited

The proviso is careful about quantum. The tenant must pay or deposit “an amount calculated at the rate at which it was last paid” — i.e. the rent actually being paid, not some disputed higher figure — for the period the arrears were legally recoverable, and crucially “including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which payment or deposit is made.” In plain terms, the tenant cannot freeze the calculation at the date of the demand notice or the date of the order; he must bring the account up to the month before he actually pays, so that rent accruing during the litigation is swept in. This dovetails with Section 45, which independently requires a contesting tenant to keep depositing current rent throughout the proceedings. A tenant who deposits only the historic arrears, but lets fresh rent fall into arrears during the case, has not complied with either the proviso or Section 45 and exposes himself to eviction. The 12% interest under Section 16 continues to run on sums that fall due and remain unpaid, although the proviso's protective payment is measured by the rent rate rather than by interest.

The benefit-once rule: the first proviso

The relief in clause (a) is generous but not inexhaustible. The first proviso states that “a tenant shall not be entitled to the benefit of service of notice by the landlord under this clause where, having obtained such benefit once in respect of any premises, he again makes a default in the payment of rent and other charges payable in respect of those premises.” The legislative policy is to protect the occasional or accidental defaulter once, but to deny the habitual defaulter a second bite. Where a tenant has already taken the benefit of the demand-notice mechanism (or the cure relief) in respect of premises and then defaults again, the landlord is relieved of the obligation to serve a fresh notice, and the tenant cannot demand the two-month indulgence a second time. Provisions of this kind have been consistently read by the Supreme Court as denying repeat relief to chronic defaulters while preserving the single statutory shield for the first lapse; the Karnataka proviso achieves the same balance. The practical lesson for tenants is stark: the cure window is a one-time safety net, not a recurring license to pay late.

Depositing rent where the landlord refuses to accept it

A tenant is not left helpless if the landlord refuses rent in order to manufacture arrears. Section 17 allows the tenant, where the landlord does not accept rent tendered within the time in Section 16, refuses or neglects to give a receipt, or where there is a bona fide doubt about who is entitled to the rent, to deposit the rent and other charges with the Controller in the prescribed manner, supported by an application stating the premises, the period, the landlord's particulars and the reasons for depositing. Section 18 makes such a deposit valid only if made within twenty-one days of the time fixed by Section 16, and treats a valid deposit as payment to the landlord “as if the amount deposited had been validly tendered” — squarely defeating an arrears ground founded on the landlord's own refusal. Section 19 protects the tenant further: withdrawal of the deposit by the landlord is not an admission of the rate or the period of default. A tenant who deposits correctly under Sections 17–18 therefore neutralises clause (a) at source, because there are no “arrears legally recoverable.”

Compulsory deposit during the eviction proceeding (Section 45)

Section 45 imposes a parallel and independent discipline once an eviction application under Section 27 is filed. No tenant may contest the application, or prefer or prosecute a revision under Section 46, unless he has paid or deposited all arrears of rent and other charges due up to the date of payment, and continues to deposit the rent that subsequently falls due, at the last-paid or agreed rate, until the proceedings end. Where the rent payable is disputed, Section 45(3) lets the Court summarily determine the amount to be deposited on the application of either party. The sanction is severe: under Section 45(4), if the tenant fails to pay or deposit as required, the Court “shall, unless the tenant has shown sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession,” or dismiss the appeal or revision. The Karnataka High Court has applied this rigorously, striking off the defence and ordering possession where a tenant defied the deposit direction, reasoning that judicial indulgence cannot reward deliberate disobedience. Section 45 and the second proviso to clause (a) thus reinforce each other.

Contractual tenant, statutory tenant, and the arrears ground

The arrears machinery applies whether the tenant is holding under a subsisting contract or has become a “statutory tenant” after the contractual tenancy has ended but the Act continues to protect possession. In Ganga Dutt Murarka v. Kartik Chandra Das (1961 AIR 1067) the Supreme Court explained that a tenant continuing in possession after expiry of the lease, on payment and acceptance of rent fixed under rent-control law, does not thereby acquire a fresh contractual tenancy by holding over; his right to remain flows from the statute, and he must comply with its conditions — including punctual payment — to retain protection. The significance for clause (a) is that a statutory tenant who falls into arrears enjoys exactly the same demand-notice and one-month cure protections, but equally remains bound by Section 45's deposit discipline and by the benefit-once limitation. The status question only affects the source of the right to possess; the arrears cure mechanism operates identically. For how the Act first attaches to particular tenancies, see application to notified urban areas.

Tender versus payment, and the role of valid deposit

Clause (a) speaks of the tenant having “neither paid nor tendered” the arrears, and the proviso of the tenant who “pays to the landlord or deposits into Court.” The distinction matters. A genuine tender — an unconditional offer of the whole amount — is enough to cure even if the landlord refuses to accept it, and a deposit made in accordance with the statute is treated as payment. Mangat Rai v. Kidar Nath (1980 AIR 1709) confirms that the precise moment of a valid deposit is irrelevant so long as it is made within the protective window; the law looks to substantial compliance with the cure, not to technicalities that would frustrate the protective purpose. What the tenant cannot do is offer a part of the arrears, or tender conditionally, and then claim the protection: the statute requires the “whole” of the recoverable arrears. A tenant relying on the second proviso must therefore ensure the deposit covers the full computed figure, including rent up to the month before payment, and is made within the one-month period — a short tender or a late one forfeits the relief.

Practical checklist for landlords and tenants

For a landlord proceeding on arrears: serve an unambiguous written demand in the Section 106 manner and keep proof of service; wait the full two months; plead and prove the rent rate, the period and the failure to pay the whole; and remember that even a successful case yields only a conditional order giving the tenant one further month to pay. For a tenant: pay by the Section 16 due date to avoid the ground altogether; if the landlord refuses rent, deposit under Section 17 within twenty-one days; on receiving a demand notice, clear the whole arrears within two months; if a case is filed, comply scrupulously with the Section 45 deposit and keep current rent flowing; and if an order is passed, use the one-month proviso to pay or deposit the entire computed amount. Above all, treat the benefit-once rule as a single lifeline. The arrears ground rewards diligence on both sides and punishes only the genuinely recalcitrant. For the wider statutory context, return to the Karnataka Rent Act hub.