JOINT HINDU FAMILY Vs. K S SANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's revision under section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act III of 1949 (hereinafter called the Act.

(2.) Before the Rent Controller, an application for eviction was presented under section 13 of the Act on the sole ground of the tenant being in arrears in payment of rent. It appears that service was affected on the tenant on 5-11-1966 through the summons purported to have a copy of -the petition enclosed with it, the tenant on 15-11-1966 is stated have represented to the learned Controller that no copy of the petition had been served on him along with the summons. On that date admittedly, the arrears of rent along with costs and interests were not deposited. They were deposited on the following date of hearing which was fixed for 16.11.1966. On the reverse of the summons the tenant merely endorsed "noted" The question which arose for determination for the Rent Controller and on appeal by the learned District judge was whether the tenant had been served with a copy of the application on 5-11-1966 and they have both gone in favour of the tenant and against the landlord;. The process-server went into the witness-box supporting the landlords case whereas the tenant himself went into the witness box and supported his own case. It is true that the statement made by the tenant is not as satisfactory as one would expect it to be, but the fact remains that the Rent Controller and the learned District judge have come to a finding on a question of fact that a copy of the application had not been delivered to the tenant on 5-11-1966 and, therefore, it was not due service.

(3.) As I am hearing this case on revision, interference on which is discretionary and the fact that the only ground on which eviction has been sought is default in payment of rent, which has actually since been paid with costs and interests, I am disinclined in my discretion to interfere with the impugned order. The Act, it must be remembered, has been brought on the statute book for the protection of honest tenants against greedy landlords. It is accordingly necessary that tenants must on their part be honest and regular in payment of rent if they want to rely on the protection of this statute and if they persistently drive the landlords to suits for recovery of rent, then such tenants would not deserve much sympathy from the Courts. At the same time, it has to be borne in mind that default in the regular payment of rent has not been treated by the law-maker with the same rigour as some other breaches by the tenants, because even after the initiation of eviction proceedings for failure to pay rent, payment of the arrears with costs and interests according to the statute can frustrate the proceedings. Payment of rent with costs and interests therefore, may serve to substantially satisfy the landlord's grievance so as to induce this Court not to interfere on revision, particularly when both the Courts below have held that payment was made on the first hearing after due service, even though such a finding may be somewhat unsatisfactory. On the facts and circumstances of this case, therefore, I do not think I would be justified in interfering on revision, with the result that this revision fails and is dismissed but the parties are left to bear their own costs throughout. I must make it clear, that my refusal to interfere in this case is not to be read as a precedent in all future cases where arrears of rent is not paid in accordance with the law contained in the Act, and, that the present decision proceeds on in its own peculiar facts and circumstances.