MUNEER AHAMED Vs. V K BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a tenant filed an application under Section 19 of the Karnataka rent control act, 1961 ('act' for short) in HRC No. 243/1987 on the file of the additional judge, court of small causes, Bangalore seeking permission to deposit the rents into the court. He alleged that the landlord had refused to received the rents and issue receipts; and that he had sent the accrued rent by Banker's cheque through registered post and the landlord refused to receive it. The court below has rejected the petition on the ground that petitioner has not complied with the requirements of Section 19 as he had not tendered the rent by postal money order. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) PETITIONER contends that when the landlord refuses a valid legal tender of the rent, the court ought to have permitted him to deposit the rent under Section 19. He relied on the decisions of the supreme court in DAMADILAL v. PARASHRAM AIR1976 SC 2229 , (1976 )4 SCC855 , [1976 ]suppscr645 , BRAHMANAND v. KAUSHALYA DEVI AIR1977 SC 1198 , (1977 )3 SCC1 , [1977 ]3 SCR485 , to contend that sending of rent by cheque/banker's cheque/demand Draft is a valid tender. 3. 1) In PARASHRAM's case the supreme court, while considering whether a tenant had defaulted in paying rent held that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a cheque sent by tenant to the landlord towards payment of arrears of rent is a valid tender of rent. But this case does not relate default by a tenant. 3. 2) In BRAHMANAND's case, the landlord had sued for eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent, under the U. P. (Temporary) control of rent and Eviction act, 1947. The said act provided for eviction inter alia on the ground that if the tenant was in arrears of rent for more than three months and failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month of the service upon him of a notice of demand. The said act enabled the tenant to deposit rent when a landlord refused to accept any rent lawfully paid to him by the tenant and further provided that any such deposits shall be deemed to be due payment of rent by the tenant. The supreme court interpreting the words; lawfully paid observed as follows: "but payment need not be by physical tender, person to person. It can be by money order, or through messenger or by sending a notice to the landlord asking him to nominate Bank into which the rents may be regularly paid to the credit of the landlord. If the landlord refuses under these circumstances, then the court deposit will be the remedy".

(3.) SECTION 19 of the act provides that where the address of the landlord or his authorised agent is not known to the tenant or where the landlord refuses to accept the rent remitted by postal money order under Section 47, the tenant may deposit the rent lawfully payable to the landlord in respect of the premises. Section 47 of the act provides that if the landlord fails to issue a receipt in regard to the rent tendered or evades receipt of rent, the tenant may remit to the landlord the amount within fifteen days from the date on which it falls due by postal money order deducting the money order commission.