RAM PARKASH Vs. NATHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom order of ejectment from the premises in dispute consisting of two rooms with open space has been passed by both the Authorities below.

(2.) THE premises in dispute were rented out to Ram Parkash tenant vide rent note dated 5th April, 1955 (Exhibit A1) at a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-. The tenant was for a period of two months for doing the business of cycle spare parts. It was made clear in the rent note that the tenant would not sublet the demised premises; that nothing would be done by him with the roof of the demised premises and that he would not cover the open space in front of the rooms, although he could use the space to the extent of 8 feet wide. The ejectment was sought on the ground that the tenant neither paid nor tendered the arrears of the rent besides the House Tax; that he had used the premises for a purpose other than for which the same were leased out; that he had opened a big hole in the roof of the premises and also constructed a big hall in front of the said rooms by covering the open space to the extent of 23' X 15', besides doing other damages to the building, and thus materially impaired the value and utility of the same.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that admittedly the arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing at the rate of Rs. 55/- per month and the same were not accepted by the landlord, as according to him the rate of rent was Rs. 40/- per month. Thus argued the learned counsel, if more rent was being paid by the tenant, it could not be held that the arrears of rent as claimed by the landlord were not tendered on the first date of hearing. I find force in this contention of the learned counsel. Admittedly, the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 55/- per month were tendered on the first date of hearing, which were not accepted by the landlord on that date. Thus it could not be held that no valid tender was made by the tenant on the first date of hearing because according to the landlord the rate of rent was Rs. 40/- per month. The learned Rent Controller placed reliance on Smt. Chhima Devi v. Devi Dass, 1971 P.L.R. 1000, inorder to come to the conclusion that if excess rent is tendered and the landlord refuses to accept it and he is only ready to accept the correct arrears of rent and the tenant refuses to give him that part and insists that he must either accept the whole amount, then the tender is conditional. No such proposition was laid down in the said judgment. Rather the petition filed on behalf of the landlord was dismissed. In any case, no meaningful argument could be raised on behalf of the landlord in support of this finding by the authorities below. Thus the tenant was not liable to ejectment on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent.