CHHAJU RAM Vs. KISHORE CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KISHORE Chand applied under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for the ejectment of Chhajju Ram on the ground of non payment of rent from 4th January, 1964 to 3rd July, 1964. A sum of Rs. 240 was also claimed by way of rent for this period at the rate of Rs. 40 per month. In the application, as the order of the Rent Controller dated 24th November, 1964 shows, plea was taken that an earlier application had been filed by the landlord for the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non -payment of rent from 4th September, 1963 to 3rd January, 1961. The rent for that period is stated to have been paid. In the present proceedings, since the respondent did not tender the rent due on the first hearing, the ejectment was ordered by the Rent Controller on 24th November, 1954. The tenant Chhajju Ram took the matter on appeal to the Appellate Authority, Ferozepore. According to the order of the Appellate Authority, the tenant had also pleaded that after the commencement of the tenancy, the tenant learnt that the owner of the premises was Dyal Bagh Store Ltd., and the rent was payable to the real owner. On the basis of this plea, it was urged that since the appellant had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, the Rent Controller could not have decided the case without going into that question and that in any case, time for payment of arrears of rent should have been allowed up to the end of the date of first hearing. Both these contentions were repelled as without substance. From the order of the Appellate Authority, it is clear that Chajju Ram had been served with the process of the Rent Controller for 23rd October, 1964 and he put in his appearance on that day. The Rent Controller being on tour on circuit, the case was adjourned to 23rd November, 1964. On that day, the Rent Controller was present, but Chhajju Ram did not pay the arrears of rent. The Rent Controller adjourned the case to the following day, namely, 24th November, 1964 for permitting Chhajju Ram to put in a formal written statement. On that day, Chhajju Ram did not put in his written statement, but again did not tender the arrears of rent as claimed. The Appellate Authority has expressly observed in the order that the record of the Rent Controller does not show that Chhajju Ram had expressed his intention to pay or tender the arrears of rent on any one of the dates of hearing. There was in the circumstances no paint for the Rent Controller to give any more time to Chhajju Ram up to the end of the Court hours on 24th November, 1964. The order of the Rent Controller was accordingly upheld.

(2.) ON revision before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner had to begin with, appealed to me on the ground that it is a fit case in which I should direct the Rent Controller to go into the merits of the pleas. At the bar, it has been stated that the arrears of rent were duly paid during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority. It is obvious that the power of this Court, when hearing a revision Under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. is circumscribed by the provisions of the statute and it cannot pass any order it chooses on grounds of sympathy.

(3.) IT has then been suggested that the Rent Controller is not bound to pass an order of eviction on the failure of the tenant to pay or tender the arrears of rent on the date of first hearing and that the Controller has a discretion to adjudicate upon the merits of the controversy in spite of such failure. Whether or not the Rent Controller has any such discretion need not be determined in this case, because our the pleadings there is no case made out for trial, as indisputably, mere mortgage of the property in favor of a third party can by no means be considered, by itself, to absolve the tenant of the liability to pay the rent to the owner -landlord under the agreement of tenancy. It has not been shown that there was any variation in the terms of the tenancy or that the landlord had asked the tenant to attorn to someone else. The counsel for the petitioner has also made no attempt to show how his client can deny his liability to pay the rent to the landlord. Needless to point oat that it is not the petitioner's case before me that no rent was due from him on account of the lease of the premises in dispute. The impugned orders are not shown by the petitioner's learned counsel to be either illegal or improper, and indeed, in my opinion, these were the only possible orders that could and should have been made on the material on the record.