SHAM SINGH Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by tenant against the judgment of the appellate authority, Chandigarh dated June 9, 1983.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that Darshan Singh is the owner of shop No. 14, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh and Sham Singh is a tenant under him. The owner filed an application for ejectment of the tenant inter alia on the ground that the latter had not paid the rent to him from 1.5.1979 to 31.3.82 at the rate of Rs. 500/- P.M. The tenant contested the application and pleaded that he was a tenant on payment of Rs. 300/- P.M. and the rent from 1.4.1981 to 31.3.83 was due from him. He further pleaded that the owner had received excess rent from him in the earlier ejectment proceedings, which he was entitled to adjust. He, therefore, tendered Rs. 3600/- as rent from the said period, Rs. 200/- as interest and Rs. 90/- as costs.

(3.) THE only question that arises for determination is as to whether the tender made by the tenant (now petitioner is proper or not. The owner claimed rent for the period from 1.5.1979 to 31.3.82 at the rate of Rs. 500/- p.m. Even if it may be assumed that Rs. 300/- P.M. was found as the rate of the rent the total amount which became due to the owner was 10,500/-. The tenant however, paid Rs. 3600/- in the Court leaving a balance of Rs. 6900/-. He had also filed suit No. 54 of 1977 for recovery of Rs. 1600/- on account of excess rent paid for the period 1.10.1975 to 31.5.1976. That suit had been decreed by the trial Court. The decree was affirmed by the appellate Court. The second appeal was filed by the owner in this Court which has been accepted by me today on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the tenant has urged that as the amount of Rs. 1600/- was due to the petitioner on the date when he tendered the rent, therefore, this amount should be deemed to have been paid. Even if the amount is taken to be paid on the first date of hearing the amount of rent shall fall short by Rs. 5300/-. The tenant further claimed that he was entitled to the adjustment of excess @ Rs. 200 P.M. from 1.6.1976 to 30.4.1979 which he paid in the Court of Rent Controller subsequently. It is true that he was entitled to recover it but he could do so under section 8 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act within a period of 6 months from the date of tender. In the above view I am fortified by the observations of this Court in Dhani Ram and others v. Pt. Ghasita Ram, 1963 P.L.R. 295 wherein it was observed that were a tenant seeks to recover rent illegally paid either by deduction from such rent or by separate action he can do so within six months from the date of payment. That case has been followed by me in the judgment of even date between the parties (See Darshan Singh v. Sham Singh R.S.A. No. 491 of 1981). Consequently, I am of the view that the tenant is not entitled to the adjustment of the said excess. Therefore, the tender made by the tenant was not proper.