SHANKERLAL Vs. MATTHULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to law the arrears of rent are to be paid or tendered to the landlord and not to be tied to his neck. The provisions made in M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) requiring a tenant to pay the amount of arrears of rent within the prescribed period of service of notice of demand and further requiring him to continue to make payment regularly month to month during the pendency of a suit for eviction are meant for protecting the interests of landlord also in the, matter of recovery of rent while providing for protection to the tenant against eviction. In order to ensure the compliance of the aforesaid requirements, the legislature thought it proper to deprive the defaulting tenant of the protection against eviction on the grounds as specified in Clause (a) of section 12 (1). But these provisions are not intended for being used as a handle by the landlord to any how create a ground for eviction of the tenant by avoiding to receive payment of arrears of rent when tendered with an ulterior motive to see that a case is any how made out for claiming eviction on the ground of default.

(2.) THE case giving rise to this appeal appears to be one of such cases where despite tender of the arrears of rent within the prescribed period by the tenant, the landlord found it convenient not to accept the same by refusing the tender made by Bank -draft or money order and thereafter filing the suit for eviction on the allegation that the tenant was in arrears of rent despite service of notice of demand.

(3.) UNDER these circumstances, the aspect of compliance of section 13(1) is not relevant in view of the finding that there has been no initial default at all so as to give rise to a ground as contemplated by clause (a) of section 12(1). Since there was no ground itself for eviction under clause (a), in view of the finding that the tenant had tendered the amount of arrears of rent on 19 -1 -1970 within the prescribed period of two months from the date of service of notice of demand on 1 -1 -1970, the stage of making a decree for eviction did not reach and thus there was no occasion for claiming the benefit of section 12(3) and 13(5) of the Act at all. The question of compliance of section 13 (1) becomes relevant when the benefit of section 12(3) or section 13(5) is to be given.