PUSHPA DEVI Vs. MILKHI RAM DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal concerns the scope and construction of S. 13 sub-sec. (2)(i) proviso of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (called shortly as The Act). The point at issue relates to the validity of the arrears; of rent deposited by the tenant under the proviso.

(2.) Milkhi Ram- the respondent in this appeal is the landlord of the premises consisting of a shop at Ludhiana. In February, 1958 the shop was taken on rent by Amar Chand. The rent agreed was Rs. 45/- per month. In December, 1975 Amar Chand died. His brother Diwan Chand succeeded to the tenancy rights. In November, 1976 he also died leaving behind his widow Pushpa Devi and his minor son Yashpal. They are respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal. The landlord brought an action for eviction under S. 13 of the Act on the ground of arrears of rent, subletting etc. His case was that respondents 1 and 2 inducted Saligram respondent No. 3 as sub-tenant and delivered exclusive possession of the shop premises. The eviction was also sought on the ground that the tenant has made alterations resulting in material impairment in the value and utility of the premises. The respondent's case was that the shop was taken on lease by Amar Chand as partner of the firm M/s. Amar Chand in which Amar Chand, Diwan Chand and Saligram were all partners in the business from very commencement of tenancy. They denied that Saligram was inducted as subtenant. They also refuted the allegations as to material alterations affecting the value and utility of the premises.

(3.) Before the Rent Controller the respondents on the first date of hearing tendered the arrears of rent, with interest and cost determined by the Controller. The amount was rendered evidently under the proviso to S. 13, sub-sec. (2)(i) of the Act. Mr. Satpal Singh the common counsel for all the respondents tendered the amount along with his statement, which reads as follows: