VIDYA PRACHAR TRUST Vs. PANDIT BASANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's appeal against an order of the High Court of Punjab, March 18, 1964, confirming the dismissal of his petition for the eviction of the respondent from certain premises taken on rent. The appellant had made the application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on the allegation that rent for the premises from October 1, 1959 to June 30, 1961 had not been paid. The rent of the premises was Rs. 32-8-0 and the water connection charges were Rs. 2-8-0. On the first date of hearing the tenant appeared and tendered Rs. 292-8-0 as rent from October 1, 1960 to June 30, 1961. He also paid Rs. 7 as interest and Rs. 25 as costs. These amounts were accepted by the landlord without prejudice to his claim that the rent for the earlier period had not been paid.

(2.) It appears that the tenant had made two deposits in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Ludhiana under Section 31 of the East Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 on December 23, 1959 and July 18, 1960, the amount being Rs. 210 on each occasion. The tenant claimed that this was a valid tender of rent to the landlord. The Rent Controller, by his order, decided that the tenant was not in default and the Appellate Authority and the High Court also took the same view. It was held by the Appellate Authority, as well as by the High Court, that the deposit under Section 31 of the Relief of Indebtedness Act was a valid tender under Section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Act. The Division Bench in the High Court followed an earlier decision of the same Court reported in Mam Chand vs. Chhotu Ram, ILR (1964) 1 Punj 626. The correctness of that decision as well as the decision under appeal are challenged before us.

(3.) Before the hearing commenced the respondent took objection to the grant of special leave stating that the appellant was guilty of making "certain inaccurate, untrue and misleading statements in respect of certain material facts". The charge was that before the Rent Controller there was no issue that the deposit under Section 31 of the Relief of Indebtedness Act was a valid tender of payment, although this was mentioned as a fact in the petition for special leave. It was also said that this question was given up before the Appellate Authority although it was stated that the point was decided by the Appellate Authority. Reliance was placed in this connection upon two decisions of this Court reported in Hari Narain vs. Badri Das, (1964) 2 SCR 203 and Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi vs. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody, (1964) 3 SCR 480. There were cases of gross-misstatement where the party applying for special leave had deliberately chosen to make false statements and false pleas. In the present case the same cannot be said of the appellant. There was only one issue before the Court and it was whether the deposit under one Act was good for the purposes of the other Act. All that the courts had to consider was whether that deposit saved the tenant from eviction or not. The High Court mentioned that this was the only point before all the Courts below and we do not think that the complaint that there had been any false averment in the petition for special leave was sustainable. We accordingly rejected the contention, raised by C. M. P. No. 64 of 1969.