JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. IIIRD. A.D.J.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri G.M. Kamil, learned counsel for tenant petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of landlords contesting respondents even though case has been taken up in the revised list.

(2.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of SCC Suit No.9 of 1982, Smt. Kaniz Fatima Bibi Vs. Jagdish Prasad . The suit was filed by original respondent No.2, Smt. Kaniz Fatima Bibi, since deceased and survived by legal representatives against the tenant petitioner for his eviction from the tenanted accommodation which is a shop. Rent of the tenanted accommodation is Rs. 20.00 per month. S.C.C. Suit No.9 of 1982 was dismissed by Munsif, Akbarpur, Faizabad exercising power of J.S.C.C. on 23.08.1984. Against the said judgment and decree, landlady filed Civil Revision No.165 of 1984. III Additional District Judge, Faizabad allowed the revision through judgment and order dated 22.08.1986 set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant petitioner only on the ground of default. It had also been alleged in the plaint that tenant was liable to eviction on the ground of material alteration/ structural changes. However, the said point was decided by the trial court in favour of the tenant and before lower revisonal court the decision of the trial court on the said point was not challenged.

(3.) As far as default is concerned, notice of termination of tenancy and demand of rent was sent by the landlady to the tenant petitioner on 10.06.1982 demanding the rent from April, 1981. Tenant received the notice on 14.06.1982 and remitted the entire rent through money order. The postman tendered the amount/ money order to the landlady on 16.07.1982, on which date she refused to accept the same. The lower revisional court held that as it was sent beyond one month from 14.06.1982, hence landlady was justified in refusing the same and tenant would be treated to be defaulter. This view of the lower revisional court is categorically erroneous in law. Even if rent is sent afterwards, landlady should have received the same. In case landlady had received the rent after one month she could not file the suit for eviction on the ground of default on the basis that rent was paid after expiry of one month from the date of notice of demand. Similarly if landlady herself refuses to accept the rent even though tendered after one month from the date of service of notice, the rent remains due but the tenant does not remain a defaulter.