ARJUN DASS Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in revision here is to the order of ejectment passed against the petitioner tenant on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent A reference to the material on record shows that on 21. 1. 1982 Arjun Dass filed a petition for the ejectment against his tenant Ram Kishan, the respondent here, inter alia on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent with effect from 1. 6. 1981 to 31. 5. 1982 amounting to Rs. 4051/ -. Notice of this petition was served on the respondent for 16. 3. 1982 which was the date fixed for hearing. The respondent did not appear inspite of service and was consequently ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. May 24, 1982 was the date fixed for recording of ex-parte evidence of the landlord Arjun Dass but in the later part of the day respondent appeared and filed an application seeking the setting-aside of the ex-parte order passed against him on that very day in the forenoon. This application was eventually allowed by the Rent Controller and the ex-parte order was set aside on 6. 12. 1982. On that very day, the Rent Controller assessed interest at Rs. 500/- and costs at Rs. 40/- and the case was adjourned to 17. 12. 1982 for tendering the amount of arrears of rent alongwith interest and costs as assessed above and also for filing written statement. On 17. 12. 1982, the said amount was tendered and was accepted by the landlord under protest. After the written statement was filed, besides others, following issue No. 1 was framed : Issue No. 1 :- "whether tender dated 17. 12. 1982 is valid tender, if not to what effect. " This issue was decided in favour of the tenant and the petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide his order dated 2. 5. 1984.

(2.) AN appeal by the landlord was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 2. 6. 1986, hence, this revision.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner (landlord) has focussed his attention to the subject matter of issue No. 1, on which a finding adverse to the landlord has been recorded by both the Courts below, holding that the tender made on 17th December, 1982, was a valid tender. It is submitted that the Appellate Authority was in error in distinguishing the facts of the present case for extracting the same for the ambit of the law settled even by this Court in earlier authorities.