RULDU Vs. UMAR DIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Umar Din filed an application under Section 13 of the Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of his tenant Ruldu from a shop situated in Malerkotla. He alleged that the shop in dispute had been let out on rent to Ruldu about one and a half years back at a rent of Rs. 9 per month which was to be paid quarterly in advance, that Ruldu had paid rent for only six months and rent for one year amounting to Rs. 108 was due from him.

(2.) THE application was resisted by the tenant who pleaded that the rent of the shop in his possession was Rs. 3 per month. He, however, tendered the rent at the rate of Rs. 9 per month and actually deposited a sum of Rs. 175 as directed by the Court on the first day of hearing. He, however, made a prayer to the Rent Controller that the amount should not be paid to the landlord, (applicant) till the dispute with regard to the rate of rent and the period for which it was due, was decided by the Rent Controller.

(3.) NO evidence was led by the parties with regard to this issue and the Rent Controller, following the Division Bench Authority of this Court reported as Jiwana Mai v. Khushi Ram, A.I.R. 1953 P&H 70, held that such a tender of the lease amount was not a valid tender of the rent and ordered that the tenant should vacate the shop in question and deliver its possession to the landlord within two months from the date of the order.