SAT PARKASH Vs. DEVI DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who was a landlord filed an ejectment application against his tenant Devi Dyal for his ejectment on the ground of shop having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation as well as on the ground of arrears of rent. The petition was filed on 31. 1. 1977 in which it was claimed that arrears of rent were due from 20. 5. 1976 to 20. 3. 1977. Notice of the ejectment application was given to the tenant for 5. 3. 1977 on which date the tenant was not present when the case was called. Because of his absence, the Rent Controller took ex parte proceedings against him. After some time, the tenant appeared and made an application that for some reasons, he was held up and could not reach Court in the early hours of the day and, therefore, he prayed that ex-parte proceedings taken against him be set aside and he may be allowed to tender the rent. The Court ordered that arrears of rent be deposited in the Court. The Rent Controller also assessed Rs. 25/- as costs of the petition. The tenant in pursuance of the order of the Court, deposited Rs. 540/- in the treasury on 7. 3. 1977 towards arrears of rent from 20. 5. 1976 to 20. 3. 1977, interest amount to Rs. 15/- and costs of the ejectment application i. e. Rs. 25/ -. Ex parte proceedings were set aside on 16. 3. 1978 on which date the tenant, again tendered Rs. 40/as interest. The issue with regard to the shop having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation was decided against the landlord. On the ground of arrears of rent, the petition was allowed and it was found that rent deposited in the Court was not a valid tender. Tenant impugned the order of the Rent Controller before the Appellate Court who, after allowing the appeal, dismissed the ejectment application. Landlord has come to this Court in this revision against the order of the Appellate Court.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in this civil revision. According to counsel for the petitioner, first date of hearing was 16. 3. 1978 when ex parte proceedings were set aside. According to him, no rent was tendered on that date and, therefore, the Rent Controller rightly found that there was no valid tender. I am not prepared to accept this contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, in response to the notice, the respondent appeared in Court on 5. 3. 1977 though he appeared only after the Court had proceeded ex parte against him and had adjourned the case but nevertheless, he made an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings and also made an offer to deposit the rent along with interest which he deposited on 7. 3. 1977. Even if the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted to the extent that 16th of March 1978 was the first date of hearing, even then on that date rent stood already deposited for payment to the landlord. It is not the case of the landlord that the rent deposited was short. In these circumstances it cannot be said that there was no valid tender.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the civil revision is dismissed with no order as to costs.