ZOHRA Vs. IVTH A D J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenants' writ petition arising out of suit for eviction on the ground of default and for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was filed by Radha Rani, the original landlady, who died during pendency of the suit and was survived by her legal representative, respondent No. 3. In the plaint of the suit (S.C.C. Suit No. 359 of 1979) it was pleaded that rate of rent was Rs. 15/- per month and tenants had not paid rent since 1/1/1976. Tenants pleaded that rate of rent was Rs. 10/- per month and rent till August, 1978 had been paid by their predecessor-in-interest who died in August, 1978. Both the courts below have accepted the version of the tenant in this regard. The courts below have held that rate of rent was Rs. 10/- per month and rent had been paid till August, 1978. Tenants further pleaded that seven months rent from September, 1978 to March, 1979 was sent through money order to the original landlady but the same was refused by her. This version was not accepted by the courts below. Tenants did not deposit any amount in the suit nor claimed benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act The trial court through its judgment and decree dated 31.10.1988 decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent from September, 1978 onwards. Against the said judgment and decree both the parties filed revisions. Tenant's revision was registered as S.C.C. Revision No. 303 of 1988 and landlord's revisional as S.C.C. Revision No. 25 of 1989. Landlord before the revisional court asserted that the findings on the rate of rent and period of default recorded against him by the trial court were erroneous. Revisional Court did not accept the said plea and confirmed the findings of the trial court in that regard. Nothing has been argued before me in this respect, hence this stands concluded. Revisional Court also disbelieved the version of the tenant that Rs. 70/- as seven months rent had been sent by him through money order and refused by the landlady

(2.) Both the courts below refused to accept the plea of the tenant in respect of refusal of money order by the landlord on the ground that in the postal receipt in respect of said money order which was filed by the tenant (No. 61c) complete address of the landlady was not mentioned and only name of the landlady i.e. Radha Rani and city was mentioned. In this regard the courts below also observed that the money order coupon containing recital of refusal of the landlady allegedly by postman neither contained postal stamp nor the signatures of the person recording the endorsement of refusal were legible hence refusal was not proved. Trial court further held that even if it had been refused by the landlady, tenant should have deposited the same in the suit.

(3.) In case it is held that landlady refused the money order then tenant will not be liable to eviction. It has been held in a Full Bench authority of this Court reported in Indrasini v. Deen Ilahi 1968 A.W.R. 167 followed in another Full Bench authority of G. Singh v. A.D.J. 2000 (1) ARC. 653 that in case the landlord refuses to accept the rent then rent remains in arrears but tenant does not remain in arrears of rent.