MOHAN SINGH Vs. DINA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dina Nath filed an application for ejectment of' Mohan Singh, tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. On that petition, the Rent Controller issued notice to the tenant for 23-4-1980. On 23-4-1880. the tenant put in appearance and the case was adjourned to 9-5-1980 for tendering the rent. On 9-5-1980, the Rent Controller did not hold court as he had gone to another station to give evidence and, therefore, the case was to be put. up on 12-51980, under the note of the Reader. On 12-5-1980, the counsel for the parties appeared and the learned Rent Controller passed the following order: "I have asked the respondent's counsel that he can tender rent, costs and interest, if he so wants. He says case be fixed for tomorrow as his client has not turned up Adjournment is given at hie own risk. To came up on 13-5-1980.

(2.) On 13-5-1980. the arrears of rent were tendered and the Court also assessed costs and interest which were also tendered. The landlord stated that the tender was invalid and, therefore, accepted the same under protest. After trial; the Rent Controller found that the tender was not valid as 23-4-1980 was the first date of hearing and the tender of arrears of rent had to be made within 15 days thereof, i.e., up to 9-5-1980,and since and since the tender was not made in accordance with law, he ordered eviction. The appeal filed by the tenant met with the same fate. This is tenant's revision in this court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the tenant has urged that a reading of first proviso of section 13 (2) (i) of the Haryana I Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, would show that it is the ! duty of the Rent Controller to calculate the arrears of rent, interest and costs and till the calculation is made, the 1 tenant cannot be held liable to eviction. It is urged that since the calculation was made on 13-5-1980 and tender having been made on that date, the proviso was duly complied with and as such the Courts below were in error in ordering ejectment. The aforesaid argument of the learned counsel is refuted by Shri; H. L. Sarin, appearing for the landlord, and it is urged that the correct reading of the proviso is that it is the duty of the tenant to pay or tender arrear of rent within 15 days of the first date of hearing and it is the interest which has to be calculated by the Rent Controller at 8 per cent per annum on such arrears, and the costs have also to be fixed by; the Rent Controller. In order to appreciate the argument, it will be useful to reproduce the proviso hereunder.