FAKIR MOHD Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for ejectment of the tenant from a shop on the ground available under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter the "Act", for short), filed by the respondent, was dismissed by the trial Court. In an appeal preferred by the respondent, the first appellate Court reversed the decision of trial Court and decreed the suit. The High Court has dismissed the second appeal preferred by the tenant and upheld the decree of eviction passed by the appellate Court. The legal representatives of the tenant, who has died during litigation, have filed this appeal by Special Leave. For the sake of convenience we will refer to the appellants as 'tenant' and the respondent as 'landlord'.

(2.) The relevant facts, to the extent not in controversy, may briefly be stated. The landlord owns a house in which there are four shops on the ground floor, one of which is in occupation of the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 55/-. Earlier a suit seeking eviction of tenant for his failure to pay or tender the amount of rent due from him was filed but the same was dismissed on account of the tenant having earned protection from eviction by making payment deposit under sub-sections (4) and (6) of Section 13. Once again the tenant fell into arrears of rent for the period from 1-3-1985 to 30-6-1986. The present suit was filed on the ground of second default. On 4-5-1985, the tenant had deposited in Court 6 months' rent vide challan No. 36 in Civil Misc. Case No. 27/85 and subsequently, on 30-10-1985, another 12 months' rent vide tender No. 2230 in Civil Misc Case No. 89/85. Both these deposits were made under Section 19A of the Act. The trial Court held the deposits to be valid deposits under Section 19A while the First Appellate Court and the High Court have held the deposits not to be valid and hence the tenant to be a defaulter. The controversy centers around the interpretation of Section 19A. Sections 13 and 19A, which are relevant, are extracted and reproduced hereunder :

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the tenant, the landlord was avoiding to accept the amount of rent tendered by him, and therefore, on 12-2-1985 through his local counsel he had given a notice to the landlord calling upon him to disclose his bank, bank account number and nature of bank account so that the tenant could deposit the amount of rent in the landlord's bank account. The landlord gave no response to the notice, and therefore, the tenant deposited the amount of rent in arrears in the Court consistently with clause (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 19-A of the Act which deposit shall be deemed to be a payment or tender, to the landlord under sub-section (4) of Section 19-A. The first Appellate Court and the High Court have held that in order to be a valid deposit under Section 19-A, the deposit in the Court must be preceded by a remittance by postal money order at the ordinary address of the landlord and in the event of such money order being received back then by a notice in writing to the landlord calling for the particulars contemplated by Section 19-A(3)(b) and it is only after having taken both the steps consecutively that the tenant becomes entitled to make a deposit in the Court. Inasmuch as it is not the case of the tenant that he tendered the rent due by postal money order to the landlord, the deposit was not valid as one of the pre-conditions for making a deposit in the Court was missing. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the tenant has preferred this appeal by special leave.