KHUSHI RAM Vs. SHANTI RANI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two petitions under section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Civil Revision 608 of 1963 and Civil Revision 750 of 1962) and although the facts are different, the question of law arising on the facts is the same in both the cases and they can be conveniently disposed of together

(2.) IN Khushi Ram v. Shanti Rani and others (Civil Revision 608 of 1963) the landlords filed an application for the eviction of the tenant Khushi Ram, and the main ground was non -payment of rent. The Rent Controller found that the rent was Rs. 30/ - per month and it had been paid up to the 6th August, 1961, and that in respect of the subsequent period, that is, from the 7th August, 1931 till the date of the application which was filed on the 31st January 1962, a sum of Rs. 150/ - had been deposited by the tenant in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge in accordance with section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934, and that payment covered the rent payable at that time. The prayer for eviction was, therefore, refused and the application dismissed. On appeal, however, the Appellate Authority held that the deposit of Rs. 150/ - under the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act did not in law amount to a payment of rent to the landlords, nor did it amount to a valid tender of that rent and, therefore, held that arrears of rent had not been paid or tendered in time, and on this finding the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and ordered the tenant's eviction leaving the parties to their own costs. The tenant, Khushi Ram, has now filed the present revision petition.

(3.) THE main argument in both the cases is that a deposit made under section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act is not payment of rent to the landlord, nor does it amount to a tender of that rent. A decision by a learned Single Judge of this Court Sat Pal v. Mathoo Ram (Civil Revision 357 of 1962); which has been mentioned by the Appellate Authority in Khushi Ram's case (Civil Revision 008 of 1963), supports that view, but all counsel agree before us that that view was not accepted by a Division Bench of this Court in Mam Chand v. Chhotu Ram and others, (1964) 66 P. L. R. 93, where it was held that a deposit made by a tenant in accordance with section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act was sufficient compliance with the terms of section 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. It is suggested on behalf of the landlords in both the cases before us that the view of the Division Bench is not sound and requires reconsideration. Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act says this -