Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dwarka Dass vs Sant Ram And Ors. on 11 September, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1991)99PLR27
JUDGMENT S.S. Sodhi, J.
1.The challenge here is to the impugned order of the appellate authority directing eviction of the petitioner-Dwarka Dass on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent.
2. On June 7, 1982, the landlord Sant Ratn filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of the petitioner-Dwarka Dass on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent the tenant being said to be in arrears of rent from November 14, 1972 to May 13, 1982. During the hearing it was found that in previous proceedings between the parties, the tenant had paid rear till July 14, 1977. The claim for arrears of rent that thus survived was for the period July 15, 3977 to July 13, 1989.
3. It was the case of the tenant that all the arrears of rent had been deposited by him under Section 31 of the Relief of Indepentedncss Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') In support of this plea, the petitioner brought on record exhibit R/1. the challan form showing deposit of Rs. 590-40 paise as arrears of rent for the period July 15... 1977 to .July 13, 1980 after adjusting asum of Rs...129,60 paise towards water charges., this deposit was made on February 25, 1980. Later, on March 27,1982, another sum of Rs. 220,80 paise was deposited towards the arrears or rent from July 14, 1980 to July 13, 1982. Here again, after adjusting Rs. 259.20 paise towards water charges The controversy that now arises, in revision, is with regard to the validity of the tender of these two amounts. It may be mentioned here that no amount was tendered as rent on the first date of hearing.
4. A reference to the challan forms, vide which the two amounts Rs. 590 40 and Rs. 220.80 were deposited by the petitioner, would show that no mention has been made there of the name of the court where the deposit was made except that one challan form bears the signature of Mrs. Sudarshan Modi and the other the stamp of the Senior Su-Judge. Farther, in exhibit R/1, the challan from "for Rs. 590.40, even the title of the petition for ejectment does not find mention and the address of the landlord Sant Ram has also not been givers therein. Only the address of the demised premises has been given. These are indeed very significant omissions when regard is bad to the provisions of Section 31 of the Act which read as under: -
"(1) Any person who owes money may at any time deposit in court a sum of money in full or part payment to his creditor. (2) The Court on receipt of such deposit shall give notice thereof to the creditor and shall, on his application, pay the sum to him. (3) From the date of such deposit interest shall cease to run on the sum deposited."
It will be seen that when deposit has been made in terms of Section 31 of the Act, the court is required to give notice of it to the creditor, namely; the person to whom the amount is payable. In a case like the present where the challan from do not give, the requisite particulars to enable the court to give such notice to the landlord, it cars, by no means be treated as a valid fender in accordance with the pro- visions of the Act
5. Further in Mangat Rai and Anr. v. Kidar Nath and Ors., A. I. R. 1980 S.C. 1709, it has been held that in order to get the protection of the proviso to Section 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, the tenant is also required to deposit interest. Admittedly, no amount has been deposited as interest by the tenant in this case
6. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner adverted to the notices exhibits R. W 4/4 and R W 4/8 seat by the petitioner's counsel to the landlord informing him of the deposits made These too are clearly of no avail when regard is had to the fact that according to the written statement, both the amounts were tendered in the court of the Senior Sub-Judge, whereas according to these notice. the first amount was deposited in the court of Mrs Sudershan Modi and it was only the second that was deposited in the court of the Senior Sub Judge.
7. Such thus being the circumstances, there can be no escape from the conclusion that there was no valid tender of rent by the tenant to the landlord ' before the filing of the petition for ejectment against him, nor as stated earlier, was any amount tendered on the first date of hearing, This being so, no exception can indeed be taken to the impugned order of the appellate authority directing the ejectment of the tenant. This revision petition is accordingly hereby dismissed. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs,