I.N. CHOPRA Vs. J.C. MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.N. Chopra has filed this revision petition against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller against him and affirmed on appeal by the learned Appellate Authority, Chandigarh vide order dated 11th August, 1977.

(2.) The only ground for eviction was non-payment of rent. Admittedly, on the first date of hearing i.e. on 11th June, 1974, the arrears of rent were not tendered in Court, with the result that the tenant was liable to be ejected on the ground of non-payment of rent. The parties were still to lead evidence when an application was made by the landlord for the amendment of the petition. The amendment sought for was that no notice to quit as required under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, was necessary to be issued to the tenant. The amendment was allowed on 10th March, 1976 and on that very day the petitioner by filing a separate application sought permission to tender the arrears of rent on the ground that that was the first date of hearing after the amendment of the petition. As the application had been filed after the case had been adjourned to 18th March, 1976 for the filing of the written statement and the landlord had gone away, the tenant deposited the arrears of rent along with interest and costs in the Court of the Rent Controller. It is on the basis of this deposit that the plea that was set up before the authorities below, was that the petitioner had tendered arrears of rent as required by law on the first date of hearing and as such he was not liable to be ejected. This contention was repelled by both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, with the result that an ejectment order was passed against the petitioner. That is how the present petition has been filed.

(3.) The only contention raised before me by Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that for the purpose of this petition the first date of hearing would be the date on which amendment was allowed by the Rent Controller. I am afraid, I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. The amendment sought for by the landlord was irrelevant so far as the ground of eviction was concerned. For the purpose of tendering the arrears of rent the first date of bearing was 11th June, 1974. The tender made by the petitioner after 10th March, 1976 was of no consequence, nor could it result in nullifying the ground of ejectment or, the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The view taken by both the authorities is perfectly legal and just.