O P BHANTI Vs. RAM NAGINA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for eviction filed by the landlord against the tenant after determination of his tenancy by a statutory notice. The plaintiff-landlord sued the defendant-tenant for eviction and claimed arrears of rent and damages for illegal use and occupation, past, pendente lite and future. The trial court dismissed the suit but the lower appellate court passed a decree for eviction and for arrears of rent and for damages for illegal use and occupation for the period from January 19, 1967 to March 21, 1967. The defendant has come up in the instant appeal and in support thereof I have heard his learned counsel Sri A.N. Bhargava. Learned counsel's contention is that in view of the deposit made under Section 7-C of the U.P. Act III of 1947 his client was not a defaulter and the relief of eviction should not have been granted to the plaintiff-landlord. In my opinion, this contention is not correct. Admittedly, the deposit which was made under Section 7-C was short of the amount of rent which was in fact due from the defendant to the plaintiff. What happened was that the defendant before making the said deposit under Section 7-C twice remitted rents by money orders-Ext. A-22 shows that the defendant sent Rs. 122.58 as rent for the period from July 9, 1966 to August 8, 1966 after deducting the electricity charges amounting to Rs. 25.50 and money order commission amounting to Rs. 1.92. Ext. A-29 shows that the defendant remitted Rs. 240.10 to the plaintiff as rent for two months from May 9 to July 8, 1966 after deducting a sum of Rs. 56.33 as electricity charges and a sum of Rs. 3.72 as money order commission. The plaintiff-landlord refused to accept the said amounts as according to him the defendant was not entitled to deduct electricity charges from the agreed rate of rent of Rs. 150/- per month. Both the courts below have hold that the rate of Rs. 150/- per month did not include the electricity charges and it was additionally payable by the defendant-tenant. In this view of the matter, it is clear that the full amount of rent was not tendered to the plaintiff-landlord and, therefore, he was entitled to refuse the money orders. Thereafter, the defendant deposited under Section 7-C a sum of Rs. 512.68 towards the rent for the period from May 9, 1966 to September 8, 1966. The rent for four months would be Rs. 600/- and so the amount was deposited after deducting the electricity charges and money order commission. Thus, it will be seen that rent was not lawfully tendered before the deposit under Section 7-C inasmuch as a lesser amount was remitted than was actually due as rent from the defendant to the plaintiff. The amount which was deposited under Section 7-C was also not the correct amount. In this view of the matter, Section 7-C cannot help the defendant. Section 7-C(1) used the expression: "When a landlord refuse to accept any rent lawfully paid to him........" There is no lawful offer to pay when a tenant insists that a lesser amount of rent was payable rent than the actual amount which is found to be higher. Therefore, the lower appellate court was justified in decreeing the suit for eviction. So far as the money decree is concerned, no exception has been taken to the sum. The appeal accordingly fails but in the circumstances, I shall make no order as to costs. The stay order dated November 5, 1969 shall stand discharged with the disposal of the appeal.