MOHAN LAL Vs. ROMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE demised property is a shop. It was let by the landlord to the tenant at a rental of Rs. 35/ - per mensem under a rent -note, Exhibit A I. of April, 30, 1958 and the tenancy was for a period of eleven months. The contractual tenancy expired at the end of eleven months, but the tenant continued in possession of the demised shop. It was on July 16, 1965, that a second rent -note. Exhibit A. 2, was executed between the parties, effective from June 1, 1965, saying that a fresh tenancy was created of the demised shop at a rental of Rs. 35/ - per mensem for a Period of five months, but it is stated in the same rent -note that the tenant was already in possession of the demised shop.

(2.) AN Application was moved by the landlord on October 1, l966, for eviction of the tenant on two grounds (a) of the conduct of the tenant having been a nuisance, which ground was given up and (b) of the tenant having been in arrears of rent from April, 4. 1959. up to the date of the application. On the first date of hearing the tenant made payment of a certain amount towards arrears of rent, another amount towards the costs of the application, and a third amount towards interest on the arrears of rent, but the landlord said that the payment or tender did not meet the arrears of rent and hence did not comply with the proviso to Clause (i) of Sub -section (2) of Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act 8 of 1949).

(3.) IN this revision application by the landlord there is only one argument for consideration, and the argument is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case there has or has not been a fresh tenancy of the demised shop created between the parties on and from June 1, 1965, so that the arrears, if any, are to be reckoned only from June 1, 1965, the date on and from which the second rent note. Exhibit A. 2, is operative ? The learned Counsel for the landlord refers to Rulia Ram v. Fateh Singh,, (1962) 64, P. L. R. 255. which was a case in which the question considered by the learned Judges of the Full Bench was whether arrears of rent barred by time were arrears on the basis of which eviction of a tenant could be obtained under Section 13(2)(i) of the Act, and the learned Judges held that such arrears were arrears of rent in spite of the same having been barred by the law of limitation for the matter of recovery, so far as the ground of eviction for non -payment of arrears under Section 13(2)(i) of the Act is concerned. This question, however, is not quite directly in point in the present case. The question, as has been stated, is just this, whether there has or has not been a fresh tenancy between the parties on and from June, 1, 1965 ? It has to be noticed that after the expiry of eleven months from the date of the first rent -note, Exhibit A. 1 the contractual tenancy between the parties, in the terms of that first rent -note, had come to an end, and the tenant remained in possession of the demised shop not under a contract of tenancy but by reason of the protection given to him and to his possession of the demised shop by the provisions of the Act. There has been no change in the rent under the second rent -note and in fact there has been no substantial change in any of the conditions of the tenancy under the second rent -note. It, therefore, cannot be that while the tenant continues to remain in possession of the demised shop and protected under the provisions of the Act from eviction, by the mere execution of a new rent -note his position so changes that he becomes immune from eviction on a ground that is given in the very Act under the protection of which he seeks to continue in possession without disturbance, except on the grounds stated in the Act. So the execution of a fresh rent -note, as Exhibit A, 2 in this case, will not alter the applicability of the provisions of the statute to the actual relationship between the parties. If such a thing was countenanced, it would have been in this case detrimental to the landlord, but it is equally conceivable that there may be many cases in which a landlord may take advantage of such a situation and obtain eviction of the tenant under him. So the new rent -note, Exhibit A. 2, effective from June, 1, 1965, did not take away the ground of eviction against the tenant for arrears of rent. It has already been stated that if the arrears as due under the subsisting tenancy from April 4, 1959, are to be reckoned, there is no dispute that the payment or tender made by the tenant under the proviso to Clause (i) of Sub -section (2) of Section 13 of the Act has not been sufficient. This was the finding of the Rent Controller which was not questioned before the Appellate Authority.