PRITAM SINGH Vs. SMT. SIBO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent , who was a tenant under the Petitioner tendered in Court rent for January, 1976, which was not due by that time. She also took up the plea that she had paid the rent up to December, 1975 on(sic) an application for ejectment filed by the Petitioner on the ground of non payment of rent, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the Respondent had paid the rent for December, 1975. He was of the view that the amount tendered for January could not be adjusted for the rent payable for month of December, 1975. On this ground he ordered the ejectment of the Respondent. The view taken by the Appellate Authority was that the rent tendered by the tenant for a different period could be adjusted for the period for which it was due. On this basis the learned Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of ejectment passed against the Respondent. The Petitioner landlord had come up in revision before this Court. The case was admitted to a D.B. on account of some conflict in judicial decisions. We do not feel it necessary to refer all those decisions because in Sheo Narain v/s. Sher Singh : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 138, the matter has been set at rest In that case the rent due was tendered before the Rent Controller before the first date of hearing. An argument was raised that such a tender was Invalid. This argument was finally repelled by the Supreme Court with the following observations

(2.) The principle enshrined in these observations applies to the facts of this case with full vigour Herein, the rent was lying actually in the pockets of the landlord and unless he had adjusted it towards the rent due for the month of December, 1975, he had no business to retain the same.

(3.) Furthermore, in Dull(sic) Chand v/s. Meman Chand (dead) : (1979) 81 P.L.R. 379 rent deposited by the tenant by referring to Sec. 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934(sic), in the same court in which the petition for eviction was filed by the landlord, was treated to have been validly tendered provided the landlord had, on the first date of hearing, been informed of this fact.