SANTOKH SINGH Vs. SHRI HARNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is a tenant. An application was filed against him under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter briefly called 'the Act') by the landlord -Respondent. The grounds taken in the petition for the eviction of the Petitioner were (a) that he (the tenant) had not paid arrears of rent; and (b) that the landlord requires the rented house for his and his son's residence. The tenant -Petitioner appeared for the first time on March 4, 1975. Some receipts regarding payment of rent, alleged to have been issued by the landlord, were put to the counsel for the landlord -Respondent. Since the landlord was not present on that date, the counsel could neither admit nor deny the same. However, the counsel made the following statement:

(2.) IN my opinion, the Rent Controller has erred in law in allowing the landlord -Respondent to withdraw his statement and also allowing the plea of non -payment of rent taken up by him to continue. Once a statement is made, the person who makes it is bound by the same. There is no question of withdrawing it on a subsequent date. In this manner, there will be no end to the litigation between the parties. The only ground given in the application is that he made a statement under misconception and did not know the implications of it as he made the statement without consulting his lawyer. This' can hardly be a ground for allowing any person to withdraw his statement. The Rent Controller is in error in observing that such a statement is against the statutory provision. It is nowhere stated in the statute that such a statement cannot be made. It is open to a party to the litigation to withdraw any of the grounds of claim at any time. The Rent Controller has taken a mistaken view of the whole matter. It was open to the landlord not to accept the rent tendered on the subsequent date, but once he accepts and gives up the ground of non -payment, he is bound by it. In fact, after the statement made ,on March 20, 1975, the ground of non -payment of rent did not exist at all and it was not open to the Rent Controller to reopen the matter and permit the landlord to withdraw) the statement and again take up the ground which he had already given up. What the statute provides is that the tenant is to pay the rent due on the first date of hearing after service. It was open to the landlord not to accept the rent after the first date of hearing, but once the rent is accepted and statement given and plea of eviction on the ground of non -payment is given up, the landlord is estopped from urging that ground again. The same view is taken by this Court in Amar Singh v. Hari Ram C.R. 255/62, decided on August 3, 1962. In that case, in the application for eviction, three grounds were taken that is (1) that the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent, (2) that the landlord required the house for his own use and occupation and (3) that the tenant had used the premises for a purpose other than the one for which they were left. On the first date of hearing that is July 8, 1961, the tenant appeared but stated that he had not received a copy of the petition. At the same time, the tenant paid the landlord the arrears of rent, The case was adjourned to July 10, 1961, on which date the tenant's reply was filed and also the interest on the arrears of rent and the costs assessed were paid. After that, the counsel for the landlord made a statement before the Rent Controller giving up the plea of non -payment of rent. The parties proceeded to trial on the other pleas raised in the petition. The Rent Controller found that the same were not proved on evidence and thus dismissed the application of the landlord. In appeal before the appellate authority, it was urged that a new ground be allowed to be taken up, that is non -payment of rent. The appellate authority accepted this ground and allowed the appeal and ordered eviction of the tenant. It was against this order of the appellate authority that the revision was filed and this Court observed as under:

(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, I allow this petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller is, however, directed to proceed with the matter on the other grounds taken by the landlord in his application for eviction. The ground of non -payment of rent being given up by the landlord cannot be allowed to be taken up again. There is no order as to costs.