MURLI DHAR Vs. SANATAM DHARAM HIGH SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 28th April, 1978 the landlord filed an application for the ejectment of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent from 1-10-1977 to 30-4-1978 at the rate of Rs.80.50 per month. Notice of the ejectment application was issued for 27th July, 1978, on which date the tenant appeared and the case was adjourned to 8-8-1978 for tendering rent. On 8th August, 1978 the following order was passed :

(2.) The additional facts which took place in between are that on 8th August, 1978 the tenant filed an application under section 6A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), which was not presented to the Court in which the ejectment proceedings were pending but were presented to the Senior Sub-Judge, who is also the Rent Controller. The Senior Sub-Judge as Rent Controller considered that application on 8th August. 1978 and after he was satisfied that the landlord was not issuing receipt he ordered that the arrears of rent and costs be deposited. In pursuance of that order the tenant made the deposit of Rs.749/-, on 10th August, 1978, Rs.724.50 as rent from November, 1977 to July, 1978 and Rs.24.50 as interest. Since the tender was not accepted to be valid, an issue was struck to that effect, the Rent Controller found that the deposit under section 6 A of the Act was valid and the costs assessed were tendered. He, therefore, dismissed the ejectment application.

(3.) The landlord went up in appeal and the Appellate Authority reversed the decision of the Rent Controller and ordered ejectment after recording findings that the landlord had been issuing receipts and there was no sufficient proof on record about the landlord's not issuing receipts and, therefore, section 6A of the Act was not applicable. It also came to the conclusion that after the tenant had appeared in the ejectment proceedings it was not understood as to why did he choose to deposit the arrears and interest before another Rent Controller, whereas section 6A contemplates the deposit before the Rent Controller. On these facts it was held that the deposit and the tender were not valid and he ordered the eviction of the tenant. This is tenant's revision.