BHOLA NATH Vs. PYARE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's revision under Sec tion 155, Civil Procedure Code against the judgments of the court be low decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-opposite party for eviction. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party on the basis that the de fendant was the tenant of the premises in question, as he had default ed in payment of arrears of rent, therefore, was liable to eviction. April 6, 1973 was the first day of hearing fixed in the suit. The de fendant filed a written statement on that date. He further submitted a tender to the court for making the deposit. The said tender appears to have been passed by the court on the aforesaid date. He admit tedly did not, however, make any offer to the landlord or tendered the rent to him on the aforesaid date.' The trial court decreed the suit holding that the defendant was a defaulter and as he had not paid or tendered the rent to the landlord on the first day of hearing, there fore, he was not entitled to get the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the trial court the defendant filed the revision under Section 25 of the Small Causes Courts Act. The revision was also rejected. The defendant has now filed this revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant urged that the court be low committed an error of jurisdiction in not giving benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act to the applicant although the requirement of the said act had been fulfilled by him. He invited my attention to the tender which has been submitted by him in the court on April 6, 1973. He urged that the money in pursuance to that tender was deposited by the applicant on April 9, 1973. He accordingly submitted that the deposit made by the applicant on April 9, 1973 would relate back to April 6, 1973 and as April 6, 1973 was the first date of hearing in the suit, therefore, the courts below should have held that the plaintiff having complied with Section 20(4) of the Act was entitled to its benefit. The above argument of the learned counsel for the applicant has no substance. It has not been disputed before me that the appli cant did not pay or tender rent on the aforesaid date. He only got the tender passed for making the deposit in the bank. Section 20(4) of the Act requires that the tenant should unconditionally pay or tender rent to the landlord along with the damages and interest for use and occupation. As stated there is no evidence on the record of this case that the plaintiff either paid or tendered rent to the landlord on the aforesaid date. Submitting the tender by the applicant to the court for depositing the money in the State Bank would not fulfil the requirements of sub-section. (4) of Section 20. It is not the passing of the tender which secures the benefit. It is the actual payment or -tender of rent by the tenant to the landlord which is intended to be complied with for relieving the tenant from eviction.

(3.) THE Oxford Dictionary has given the meaning of the word 'tender' as to offer (money) in dis charge of a debt or liability, formal offer made by one party to an other. According to Websters Third International Dictionary the word 'tender' means an unconditional offer of money to pay a debt or of service to be performed in satisfaction of a debt or obligation that is made in order to save a penalty or forfeiture that would be incur red by non-payment or non-performance, something that may be of fered in payment. From these meanings it is clear that in order to establish that money has been tendered it is necessary to prove actual offer of the amount to the landlord. It is immaterial that the land lord does not accept it. The tenant shall be deemed to have discharg ed his obligation the moment he offers the payment. But mere will ingness on his part to pay will not be sufficient. It must be accom panied by actual production of money.