MADAN MOHAN SINGH Vs. HARBANS LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER:- This is tenant's revision petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below.

(2.) Landlord Harbans Lal sought the ejectment of the tenant Madan Mohan Singh from a portion of house No. 1207, Bengali Mohalla, Ambala Cantt. which was given to him on rent at the rate of Rs.70/- per month besides water rate and electricity charges, as per the reading of the electricity meter. According to the landlord, the tenant had not paid the electricity charges from May 1, 1981 to October 31, 1981; the, water rate, and the rent amounting to Rs.420/- for the above said period In the written statement, the tenant controverted the same and pleaded that there was no agreement to pay the water-tax or the water rate by him to the landlord. It was also averred that the Ambala Sadar Municipality had abolished the water-tax with effect from April 1,1980. Since there was no exclusive tap in the tenanted premises under his control, the question of paying any water rate by him did not arise. It was also pleaded that he was paying electricity charges against his electricity consumption regularly. On the first date of hearing, i.e. December 9, 1981, the Rent Controller assessed Rs.420/- as the arrears of rent; Rs.14/- as interest thereon and the costs of Rs.30/-; total Rs.464/- and the case was adjourned to December 23,1981. On that day, the tender was accepted under protest Thus, the main controversy between the parties in this case is : whether the tender made on the first date of hearing was valid or not? The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant was not liable to pay the water rate. Since, he had failed to tender the amount of electricity bills either in the Court or outside the Court, he had incurred the liability to be ejected from the premises, in dispute. Thus, the tender made by himon the first dateof hearing was not valid as it did not include the electricity charges which formed part of the rent. The other plea of the landlord that he bona fide required the premises for his own use and occupation was negatived. Ultimately, the eviction order was passed against him. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order passed against him. Dissatisfied with the same, he has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) The gravamen of the agreement of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the electricity charges were not fixed between the parties, they could not form part of the rent and, therefore, the tender made by the tenant on the first date of hearing could not be held to be invalid on that account. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Chhotelal v. Kewal Krishan. AIR 1971 SC 987.