KHUMANI Vs. SAKTEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Khumani appellant occupied a house belonging to Saktey Lal on rent. A sum of Rs. 3/4/- was the monthly rent reserved & the period of tenancy began from the 6th of every month. It appears that rent fell into arrears & on 16-1-1947, the plff. sent a notice as required by Section 3 (a), Control of Rent & Eviction Act, calling upon the tenant to pay the rent due within one month of the service upon him of the notice of demand. The rent stated in the notice was Rs. 19/8/-, being the rent due from the period commencing on 6-7 1946. In reply to this notice the tenant sent only a sum of Rs. 16/4/- which the landlord refused to accept. Subsequently, on 20-3-1947, the landlord sent a notice which has wrongly been described in the judgment of the lower appellate Court as a notice of demand but is in fact only a notice terminating the tenancy & asking the deft, to vacate the house within 15 days. After this notice had been sent, the tenant again remitted Rs. 22/4/- for the rent but this was also not accepted by the landlord, who then brought a suit on 14-4-1947, for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 29/4/- & for ejectment.

(2.) This suit was contested but it was decreed by the trial Court. The appeal of the tenant was dismissed by the Civil Judge of Hardoi & the tenant has now come up in second appeal.

(3.) The learned Advocate has contended firstly that before the date of the suit the amount covered by the notice of demand, dated the 16th of January, had been fully paid & therefore, the suit was not maintainable. This position is not correct. The general law permits the ejectment of a tenant after giving him 15 days' notice terminable with the month of the tenancy. The Special Law, namely the Control of Event & Eviction Act restricts that right & provides that the landlord cannot evict a tenant unless, among other things, the tenant makes a wilful default in the payment of rent within one month of the service of notice of demand upon him. In the present case such a notice was issued & the tenant failed to make payment within the time allowed. Thereafter, the parties were relegated to the general law & according to the general law, the plff. landlord was entitled to evict after giving the requisite notice. This he proceeded to do & therefore, the suit was competent even though the deft, had thereafter tendered the whole amount of the rent due.