ABID HUSSAIN Vs. ROSHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for revision raises two questions; one of law and the other of fact. The question of law briefly stated is whether the arrears of rent which have to be deposited by a tenant for avoiding a decree for ejectment include the rent dues prior to the period when the present landlord acquired his title in the premises. The question of fact is whether the tenant had sub -leased the suit premises to entitle the landlord to ask for an ejectment decree.

(2.) THE dispute has arisen in this way. The Respondent, Roshan Dass, acquired by sale the suit premises, of which the Petitioner Abid Hussain is a tenant, consisting of a shop and two balakhanas in Ward No. 6, in Kucha Rehman, Chandni Chowk Delhi, on 27th of March, 1957, from one Abdul Rashid. It appears that certain rent was due to Abdul Rashid when he sold the suit property to Roshan Dass and the right to recover these arrears was sold to the Respondent. These arrears are for a period between 5th of March, 1955 and 27th of March, 1957. Soon after the acquisition of property by him, Roshan Dass brought a suit for ejectment on 10th of June, 1957, on three grounds, namely, (a) non -payment of rent, (b) subletting, and (c) bona fide requirement of the landlord. The trial Judge found in favour of the tenant on all the points and dismissed the suit for ejectment. In appeal, however, the lower Appellate Court, while in agreement with the trial Court on the question of the landlord 's requirement, has held that the arrears of rent had not been paid by the tenant and the tenant had sublet the premises. The suit has accordingly been decreed.

(3.) THE tenant has filed a petition for revision and the case for both sides has been argued very fully before me. On behalf of the Petitioner, it has been urged that under Sub -section (2) of Section 13 of the Delhi -Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, the tenant deposited in Court the sum of Rs. 131 as arrears of rent which were due from him to the present landlord and for this reason no decree for ejectment could be passed against him. Admittedly, the arrears of rent for the period before Roshan Dass acquired a title in the property as a landlord have not been paid. It has been contended that though the landlord had acquired by purchase the right to recover the arrears which had been subsisting prior to the date of sale, this does not entitle him to demand from the tenant a full payment of them before claiming ejectment. On the first date of hearing on 25th of July, 1957, no payment or deposit was made and an application was made for extension of time under Section 13(2) of the Act. The time was extended up to 20th of August, 1957. No payment was made even then and another application for extension was made on 21st of August, 1957. The money was actually deposited on 30th of August, 1957. There was no order for extension of time but it has been rightly held by the lower Appellate Court that the time must be deemed to have been extended by the trial Court as it actually dismissed the suit for ejectment. Although the lower Appellate Court decided the case against the tenant in appeal, it did not find that there was any default in payment of arrears so far as the sum of Rs. 131 was concerned.