MADAN SINGH RAWAT Vs. RAMESHWAR DAYAL SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal against the judgment dated 26-10-1970 of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Allahabad, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for arrears of rent, ejectment of the appellant from the premises in suit and for compensa tion for use and occupation of the same from the date of termination of the tenancy.

(2.) THE appellant is the tenant of the respondent and the accommodation in ques tion is a house bearing No. 96, New Katra Extension in this city. It was a month to month tenancy, the monthly rent being Rs. 20.00, As the landlords or in other words, the respondents refused to accept rent in the past, the appellant had started depositing the monthly rent in the court of the Munsif concerned under Section 7- C of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (U. P. Act No. 11 of 1947) (here inafter referred to as the Act) in accord ance with the order passed by the learned Munsif in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 217 of 1965. It may be mentioned that the res pondents refused to recognise the deposits made by the appellant under Section 7-C of the Act as valid and filed Suit No. 435 of 1965 for ejectment of the appellant. That suit was dismissed on 29-10-1965 and the appeal filed by the landlord also was dismissed on the 15th of April, 1966, but a decree for Rs. 20.00 was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The landlord or in other words the plaintiff served the notice dated 10-12-1965 (Ex. 8) on the defendant informing the defendant that he should pay the rent to the plaintiff instead of depositing it under Sec tion 7-C and demanding Rs. 140.00 as arrears of rent together with the decrial amount of Rs. 20.00. This notice is not very relevant for the purposes of this appeal. Similarly, though it is not very relevant, it may be mentioned that the appellant sent a reply to the said notice and the reply is dated 14-12- 1966 (Ex. 2). By this reply the plaintiff was informed that only Rs. 40.00 was due to the plaintiff and the plaintiff should inform the defendant whether the defendant really was willing to accept payment so that the defen dant may send the said amount of Rs. 40.00through a money order. Thereafter the plain tiff sent the notice (Ex. 9) in the form of a letter dated 16-12-1966 acknowledging re ceipt of the letter (Ex. 2) and informing the defendant that in future the defendant should pay the rent to the plaintiff either through money order or through a messenger. The plaintiff also informed the defendant in clear terms that he should not deposit the rent after receiving the letter under Section 7-C of the Act in the court of the Munsif. After the receipt of this letter the de fendant in reply wrote the letter dated 21-12-1966 (Ex. 4) acknowledging receipt of the letter (Ex. 9). In that letter the defen dant undertook to send the necessary amount to the plaintiff comprising the rent and Bhumi Bhawan Kar along with the decrial amount but requested the plaintiff to let the defendant know whether the plaintiff would get the premises white- washed and repaired. The defendant further mentioned that in case he did not receive any reply to that letter, he would assume that the plaintiff had no objection to the defendant spending one month's rent towards annual repairs and white-washing of the premises. It is appa rent from the material on the record that after receiving the letter (Ex. 9) from the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the rent to the plaintiff, though the plaintiff in clear terms had informed the defendant that he was willing to accept the rent and had also asked the defendant not to deposit the same in court. As no rent was paid to the plaintiff by the defendant, (Ex. 5), a composite notice of demand and quit under Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act and under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy, dated 24-8-1967 was served on the defendant on the 29th of August, 1967. Through this notice the plaintiff demanded Rs. 180.00 as arrears of rent for the period November, 1966 to July, 1967. Even after receiving this notice the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff. It appears that he, instead of paying to the plaintiff the rent due, went on depositing the same in court under Section 7-C of the Act (vide Exs. A-l, A-2, A-3 and A-4).

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the appellant, as the entire rent due to the plaintiff for the period November, 1966 to July, 1967 was deposited under Sec. 7-C of the Act by 31-8-1967 long before the pe riod of one month had expired after the ser vice of the notice (Ex. 5), in view of sub section (6) of Section 7-C of the Act, the defendant should be deemed to have duly paid the rent due to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was not entitled to get the defen dant evicted. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the observations made by this Court in Israr Ahmad v. Sant Ram, (1971) All WR (HC) 401 = (AIR 1971 All 559). The contention has no force. In the ruling cited after service of the notice while the tenancy was still subsisting the defen dant had remitted the entire amount due to the landlord as rent by a money order which was refused by the landlord and thereafter the entire amount was deposited under Sec tion 7-C of the Act in accordance with law. In the instant case, as has been pointed out, the defendant never offered to pay either by money order or in person or through a messenger the rent due to the plaintiff even though the plaintiff had intimated to the de fendant his willingness to accept the same through the said letter. As is apparent from the language of sub-section (1) of Sec. 7-C of the Act a tenant can deposit rent due to the landlord under Section 7-C after the landlord has refused to accept the rent and till the landlord signifies by notice in writing to the tenant his willingness to accept the same. In the instant case, it may be repeat ed that through the letter (Ex. 9) the landlord had signified his willingness to accept the rent and had even asked the defendant-tenant not to deposit the same in court under Sec tion 7-C. Therefore, any deposit made by the tenant under Section 7-C thereafter will not be valid in the eye of law.