Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.17 seconds)
Smt. Pushpa Devi & Ors vs Milkhi Ram on 8 February, 1990 cites

Gopal Ram And Ors. vs Ram Prasad And Ors. on 25 February, 1952

In Ram Gopal case the arrears of rent were tendered by Chetan Ram, the tenant, his son Ram Bhagat alongwith Banarsi Das and Dhani Ram who were said to be the strangers. The landlord refused to accept that amount on the ground that the tenant was Chetan Ram alone and as the amount was ten- dered by persons other than Chetan Ram as well, there was no proper tender. The trial court accepted the contention of the landlord. Before the High Court it was contended for the tenant that the tender was valid since one of the tenderers was the tenant himself and the mere fact that he has joined the other persons who are strangers would not make any difference. The tender must be deemed to be by the tenant and his associates should be ignored. The High Court did not accept the submission. By following some of the previous cases, it held that under the proviso the payment or tender must be made exclusively by or on behalf of the tenant and on his account. The payment or tender made by the tenant alongwith the strangers and also on their account would be in contravention of the proviso and invalid. The High Court accordingly affirmed the order of eviction. Onkar Mal is also a case of eviction based on arrears of rent as one of the grounds. The action was brought against Gulab Chand and Bhanwar Lal, the original tenants and Sohan Lal, Jagan Nath and Balkar Singh alleged to be the sub- tenants inducted into the premises without consent of the landlord. The undisputed tenant did not attend the court despite due service of notice and was proceeded ex-parte. The alleged sub-tenants in their written statement claimed that they shared the tenancy since they had entered into partnership with the tenant for carrying on theft business. They tendered the arrears of rent together with interest and costs of the proceedings on the first date of 284 hearing of the case. The question arose whether the tender was valid and whether the alleged sub-tenants could deposit the arrears of rent on their own account and also on behalf of the undisputed tenant. The landlord however, refused to accept the amount on the ground that those who deposited the arrears were not his tenants and they had no authority to tender the rent on behalf of Bhanwar Lal and Gulab Chand. The Rent Controller did not make any specific order on that contention. He proceeded to consider the question of sub- letting. After considering the evidence produced by the parties he recorded a finding that there was sub-letting by the tenant and consequently ordered eviction. The appellate authority and also the High Court concurred with that opin- ion. The High Court further held that it is only the persons who fall within the definition of 'tenant' could tender the rent under the proviso and not a third party or sub-tenant inducted into the premises without consent of the landlord. In the instant case, the appellate authority being bound by those two authorities has rejected the amount tendered by counsel as being invalid. The correctness of that view has been challenged in this appeal.
Patna High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1