BUTA SINGH Vs. BANWARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom order of ejectment has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE landlord (Banwari Lal) filed the ejectment application for seeking ejectment of Jagdish Chander and Buta Singh from the premises in dispute. According to the case of the landlord, these premises had been given on a monthly rent of Rs. 22 to respondent No. 2 Jagdish Chander by the landlord on 9th June, 1960. The ejectment was sought on the ground the Jagdish Chander tenant had neither tendered nor paid the arrears of rent from 1st January, 1970. The application was filed on 6th March, 1974. The second ground was that said Jagdish Chander had sublet the premises to Buta Singh petitioner without the written consent of the landlord. The ejectment application was contested on behalf of Buta Singh, the alleged sub-tenant, whereas Jagdish Chander respondent No. 2 was proceeded against ex-parte. In the written statement filed on behalf of Buta Singh, he took up the plea that he was direct tenant under the landlord with effect from May 1962, and that he was not a sub-tenant under Jagdish Chander, as alleged in the ejectment application. He denied that he was in arrears of rent. According to him, he had paid rent upto 31st August, 1970 to Saraswati Devi and from 1st Sept., 1970 to 31st March, 1971 to Ram Nand Kapur and from 1st April, 1971, to 30th August, 1972 to Smt. Narinder Wati and Smt. Rita Mehra. Thus arrears of rent due from 1st September, 1972 to 28th February, 1974, amounting to Rs. 504 at the rate of Rs. 28 per month, Rs. 27 by way of interest and Rs. 30 as costs, totalling Rs. 562 were tendered on the first date of hearing i.e. 18th April, 1974. However, the landlord did not except the tender on the ground that Buta Singh was not his tenant and he was only a sub-tenant in the demised premises.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that according to the landlord, Buta Singh was a sub-tenant under Jagdish Chander and, therefore, Buta Singh was under no legal obligation to tender the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. According to the learned counsel though he tendered the arrears of rent from 1st September, 1972 to 28th February, 1974 on the first date hearing but the same was not his tenant. Thus, argued the learned counsel, since the landlord never came to the Court with clean hands as he never accepted Buta Singh to be his tenant, under the circumstances, Buta Singh though found to be the direct tenant under the landlord, was under no obligation to tender the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing, and thus the order of ejectment passed against him on that ground is liable to be set aside.