CHHOTELAL Vs. LALTA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has been referred by the learned single Judge for decision on the following questions: -

(2.) IF the tenant could be relieved from depositing rent under section 11 after he deposits rent under S. 5 not only that the object of the provisions will not be defeated but this will also save the tenant from unnecessary harassment of depositing rent twice over which will be an unnecessary hurdle in exercising the right given to him by the law under section 11. It is an argument that if a relief is given under section 11 every tenant against whom a suit for eviction is instituted under section 4 will rush to the Rent Controlling Authority and will pray for reduction of rent. This argument does not appeal to me It is difficult to imagine that the Tranter's of the law' ever intended that the tenant should be required to deposit rent twice over; Again, suppose a tenant institutes a third suit under section 8 of the Act complaining that the landlord has, without any just or sufficient cause, cut off water supply from his premises, then to ask him to deposit rent for' a third time under section 11 cannot be justified, I am satisfied from this discussion that once a tenant deposits rent under section 5 it is wholly unnecessary, and the legislature cannot be presumed to have intended, that the tenant should be asked to deposit rent again and again in as many suits as may be pending.:

(3.) BUT it is to be seen whether the anomaly can be avoided by judicial interpretation. On reflection I find that there is an obvious and un surmountable difficulty in putting the construction which in this particular circumstance should have been put to the word 'shall in section 11 of the Act. I would analyze this as follows: