BABOO RAM Vs. ISHRAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by a tenant against whom a decree for ejectment has been passed by the lower appellate court though the trial court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. The accommodation, which is the subject-matter of the suit, is governed by the provisions of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (to be hereafter called as the Act) which has since been repealed. The ejectment of the tenant was sought by the landlord on the ground that he had committed default within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act. A notice dated 16-9-1964 demanding arrears of rent due till then for a period of more than three months was served by the landlord on the tenant on 17-9-1964 requiring him to pay the arrears of rent within one month from the date of the receipt of that notice. The tenant sent the arrears of rent by money order on 10-10-1964. The money order was addressed to the landlord who resided in district Sitapur though the accommodation is situate in the city of Lucknow. The money order was taken by the postman to the landlord on 31-10-1964 and on that date the postman reported that the landlord had gone out of station for indefinite period and so he returned the money order to the tenant who received it back on 9-11-1964. On these facts the landlord alleged that the tenant was liable to ejectment under S. 3 (1) (a).

(2.) THE defence of the tenant was that there was an agreement between the parties that rent would be sent by the tenant to the landlord through money order after deducting money order commission. As such, the defendant did not commit any default when he sent the arrears of rent to the landlord by means of a money order on 10-10-1964 which in ordinary course must have reached him before the expiry of the period of one month' notice. If for some reason the money order did not reach the landlord within time or he did not accept it, the tenant was not at fault and the Post Office in such circumstances shall be 000deemed to be the agent of the landlord.

(3.) THE defendant filed this second appeal against that decree. The appeal had a chequered history in this Court. It came for hearing before G. D. Sahgal, J. who under his order dated 23-8-1968 noted that there was a difference of opinion in this Court on the question whether in the circumstances of the case when rent was remitted by the tenant to the landlord by money order, the Post Office acted as an agent of the tenant or of the landlord and so referred it to a larger Bench. The two decisions in which contradictory views on this point were taken were Jodha v. Ayodhya Prasad, 1967 All LJ 491 (supra) and Ratan Lal v. Jagannath Prasad, 1967 All LJ 1029.