PADMA KAUR Vs. P N KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant sued respondent for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent etc. claiming non-payment from 1.4.1970 and rate of re to be Rs. 150.00. Respondent pleaded that rate of rent was Rs. 140.00 as after disconnection of. water supply he obtained independent connection and rent was fixed at Rs. 140.00 and he had paid at that rate rent for March and April, 1972. He also pleaded that he sent cash order for May and June, 1970 on 15.7.72 and then 2 cash orders as rent for 4 months. Appellant denied receipt of first. She did not accept the other two. The Rent Controller ordered deposit of rent U/S 15(1) but the Tribunal in appeal set aside this order. Landlady appealed to High Court.] para 5 onwards the Judgement is:-

(2.) This sub-section, therefore, comes into play whenever proceedings are filed for the recovery of possession of any premises, on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act The question as to whether the said proceedings are justified or not or are quite baseless, is a question to be determined by the Controller on merit But the sub-section enjoins upon the Controller to make an order giving the directions mentioned in sub-section, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard. as and when the proceedings based on the aforesaid ground are brought before him. The Controller would, of course, hear the parties, if there is difference amongst them with regard to the amount which would be calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid; or with regard to the period for which arrears of rent are legally recoverable from the tenant. And, if there is no such difference the question of hearing the parties would not arise. The Controller would make the order straightaway.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent contended that an order under section 15(1) could not be made in this case, as the very ground on the basis of which proceedings for recovery of possession were started did not exist. He referred to clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, according to which the orders for the recovery of possession could be made only if the tenant had neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent legally recoverable within two months of the date on which a notice of demand was served on him. In the present case, the learned counsel contended, the tenant had tendered the whole of the arrears of rent by means of the three cash-orders referred to above. The learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand submitted that the said cash orders admittedly not having been encashed there was no payment. Nor was there any valid tender. The first cash order could not, therefore, be accepted because it purported to be towards rent for the months of July and August, 1970, when the rent for the months of May and June 1970 had still remained unpaid. The cash order for the months of September and october, 1970, could not likewise . be taken as a valid tender,when the rent for the months of May to August, 1970, was yet to be paid. The landlady, therefore, apart from other reasons, was said to be fully justified in not accepting the two cash orders for July to October, 1970.