NIRMAL KAUR Vs. PREM LATA SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom eviction order has been passed by both the authorities below. The landlady Smt. Prem Lata Sood, wife of Amar Nath Sood, through her General Attorney Harish Chander, sought the ejectment of her tenant Smt. Nirmal Kaur from House No. 1168, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. It was alleged that the entire ground floor except one outer room with bath-room was given on rent to the tenant @ Rs. 1,400/- per month and that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1st April, 1982 to 31st December, 1982. The application for ejectment was filed on 2nd February, 1983. The other ground taken was that the landlady bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation. In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant these allegations were controverted. It was pleaded that the rent was Rs. 700/- per month and not Rs. 1,400- as alleged. Moreover, the same was not payable in advance. Tender of rent amounting to Rs. 4,000/- with Rs. 100/- as interest and costs, assessed, was made on the first date of hearing i.e., 3rd March 1983 though it was pleaded that the same was not due and was also not payable because the tenant had already paid a sum of Rs. 2,400/- to the Income-tax Department on behalf of Amar Nath, the husband of the landlady, and a sum of Rs. 2,800/- by way of four cheques of Rs. 700/- each. The ground of personal necessity was controverted. The learned Rent Controller found that the rent was Rs. 700/- per month and not Rs. 1,400/- as claimed by the landlady. However, even on the basis of Rs. 700/- per month, the tender made was short by Rs. 2,300/-. The payment made by the tenant to the Income-tax Department under Section 226(3) of the Income tax Act was not accepted on the ground that the said amount was paid in the name of the husband of the landlady and that too by the husband of the tenant-lady. The plea of payment of Rs. 2,800/- by way of four cheques also was not accepted. However, the plea of the landlady that she bonafide required the premises for her own use and occupation was negatived. Ultimately, eviction was ordered. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the eviction order. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed the present petition.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it has been found by both the authorities below that a sum of Rs. 2,400/- was paid by the husband of the tenant Smt. Nirmal Kaur in the name of Shri Amar Nath Sood, husband of the landlady, as directed by the Income-tax Department under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act but the same amount has not been allowed to be adjusted towards the arrears of rent on the technical ground that this payment by the husband of the tenant on account of income-tax dues of husband of the landlady does not absolve her of the liability to pay the arrears of rent due towards the tenant. According to the learned counsel this approach of the authorities belwo was wholly wrong and misconceived. In support of this contention he referred to Sukhanti Ram Binod Kumar v. Bijoy Laxmi Jaiswal, 1983(2) RCR 134 : 1983 RCJ 561. It was next contended that payment of Rs. 2,800/- was also made vide cheques Ex. R7 to R10 and the adjustment of the same has been wrongly denied by the authorities below.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the relevant evidence on record. It is the common case of the parties that the promises were let out by Smt. Prem Lata Sood through her General Attorney Harish Chander. She herself had gone abroad and was not living in India. Admittedly, the husband of the tenant, Jatinder Singh, received a notice under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act on the address of the premises in dispute whereby he was directed to pay forthwith any amount due from him to Amar Nath Sood, the husband of the landlady. A copy of this notice was also sent on the address of the demised premises to Amar Nath Sood. It is also in evidence, and not denied, that the husband of the tenant did pay a sum of Rs. 2,400/- to the Income-tax Department in the name of the assessee Amar Nath Sood, husband of the landlady. The approach of the authorities below in this behalf that on technical ground this payment by the husband of the tenant on account of Income-tax dues of the husband of the landlady does not absolve her of the liability to pay arrears of rent was wholly wrong and misconceived. There was no occasion for the tenant to make this payment but for the notice under Section 226(3) of the income-tax Act. Of course, the notice was issued by the Income-tax Department in the name of Jatinder Singh, the husband of the tenant, and that too for payment of the arrears by Amar Nath Sood, the husband of the landlady. But that does not make any difference, particularly when the notice was issued at the address of the demised premises. Admittedly Jatinder Singh was occupying the said premises along with his wife-tenant. Simply because the premises were taken on rent in the name of Smt. Nirmal Kaur did not mean that her husband wrongly paid the amount to the Income-tax Department which was due from Amar Nath Sood, the husband of the landlady, under these circumstances, the tenant was entitled to claim adjustment of the said amount towards the arrears of rent as claimed in the ejectment application. If that amount is allowed then it is the common case of the parties that the tenant could not be held to be in arrears of rent or that the tender made was short in any manner. The finding is that the tender was short by Rs. 2,300/- whereas the tenant paid sum of Rs. 2,400/- to the Income-tax Department in pursuance of the notice under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act. The case set up by the landlady in this behalf could not be accepted because she had not come to the court with clean hands. She claimed rent @ Rs. 1,400/- per month whereas it has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that the rent was Rs. 700/- per month. From the evidence on the record it is proved that the tenant bonafide paid the amount of Rs. 2,400/- to the Income-tax Department which was due from Amar Nath Sood, the husband of the landlady. Under the circumstances the payment made by the tenant to the Income-tax Department being bonafide, she was entitled to claim the adjustment. It may be mentioned here that Amar Nath Sood was not a stranger as regards the payment of rent. Earlier also a cheque for Rs. 3,500/- dated 29th August, 1981, had been paid to Amar Nath as rent. Admittedly, the landlady was not residing in India and she was acting through her attorney and, therefore, sometimes it was her husband Amar Nath and sometimes her attorney Harish Chander Sood who received the payment of rent in cash or by cheques.