SURESH KUMAR Vs. SAT NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for revision is directed against the concurrent decision of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority rejecting the application of the landlord for eviction of the tenant. Eviction was claimed on two grounds, namely (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent; and (ii) that the landlord required the premises for his personal use. The tenant tendered the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 637.68 Paise towards rent for the period of three months, Rs. 6.32 paise as interest, and Rs. 30 as costs. The landlord received the amount under protest and took the plea that the tender was not valid. Of course the other plea was there that he required the premises for his personal use. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the tender was valid and that the premises being non-residential, the question of personal requirement did not arise. An appeal against this decision to the appellate authority met with no success. The landlord has come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) Mr. G. C. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, urges that in view of the reply to the notice issued by the landlord to the tenant, the latter admitted that the premises were partly residential. The premises being not solely commercial, the landlord was entitled to possession of the tame for his personal use. This contention has been dealt with by the two authorities on the ground that the admission was not correct. In fact the stand taken by the landlord in his petition for eviction was that the premises in dispute were non-commercial. The question whether the premises were commercial or not is a question of fact and the decision of the authorities below on this question is binding on me in revision.

(3.) The only question that remains to be settled is whether the tender was valid. According to Mr. G.C. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, the tender is not valid because part of the interest has not been paid and after calculating the amount, he has pointed out that only 10 paise is short though in the grounds of revision the shortage mentioned was 7 paise. In my opinion, no eviction is called for when insignificant amount of 10 parse has not been tendered, particularly when there can be a bonafide error in calculation.