DAULAT RAM Vs. KULDEEP SINGH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Act') challenging the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the petitioner was not entitled to deposit rent under Section 6-A of the Act because the tenant-petitioner has already deposited the rent in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohindergarh. The Appellate Authority has accepted the fact that the tenancy created by the tenant-petitioner has been terminated by issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and in the suit filed by the landlord- respondent, the tenant-petitioner has deposited the rent. The aforementioned factual position has been admitted by Daulat Ram, tenant-petitioner, who has appeared before the Rent Controller as PW-2. On the aforementioned basis, the Appellate Authority in its Order dated 6.5.2004 has concluded that the tenant-petitioner cannot assert that he was entitled to deposit the rent under Section 6-A of the Act. The observations of the Appellate Authority in paras 11 and 12 are relevant and the same read as under :-

(2.) MR . N.S. Shekhawat, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that there is an admission by the landlord-respondent accepting the tenant- petitioner as his tenant and therefore, the tenant is entitled to deposit rent under Section 6-A of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the mere fact of depositing the rent in the civil court would not constitute any valid ground for rejecting the prayer made by the tenant-petitioner.

(3.) A perusal of the above provision shows that a tenant could apply to the Rent Controller for grant of leave to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller which the Controller must receive if he has specified that the landlord has refused to accept the rent which was payable in respect of the demised premises when it was tendered to him by the tenant. If such a deposit is made then by operation of law, it is deemed to be payment made to the landlord. Obviously, once the deposit is made then the provisions of Section 13(2)(i) of the Act for ejectment of the tenant on account of non-payment of rent would not be available to the landlord. 6. In the present case, the rent has been deposited by the tenant-petitioner to the Court of Civil Judge where the landlord-respondent has claimed that the provisions of Rent Act were not applicable as the tenanted premises is less than 10 years old and the aforementioned fact concerning payment of rent has been candidly admitted by the tenant-petitioner when he appeared as PW-2. Therefore, provisions of Section 6-A of the Act would not come in operation in such a case. 7. In view of the above, I do not find any legal infirmity in the orders passed by both the Courts below and the instant petition is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.