SHRI DES RAJ Vs. SMT. KAUSHALYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision against an order of ejectment passed by the Appellate Authority, Jullundur. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows:

(2.) The landlady-respondent filed an application for ejectment of various grounds, one of which was default in payment of rent from 16-2-1961 till the date of filing of the petition which was in 1969, when summonses were served on the tenant he appeared in court on 4-11-1969 and paid a sum of Rs. 195/- to the counsel for the landlady towards the arrears of rent, interest and costs. The amount was accepted by the counsel for the landlady without any protest. The application for ejectment could not, however, be closed straightaway as apparently there were other grounds on which eviction was sought. Within a few days, the tenant discovered that he had miscalculated the interest payable and that the amount paid by him fell short by Rs. 52/-. He tendered this amount on 13-11-1969, the next date of hearing. This was not accepted by the counsel for the landlady. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have now found that the payment made on 4-11-1969 was not of the full amount payable by the tenant towards arrears of rent, interest and costs and, therefore, the tenant was not protected under the proviso to section 13(2)(i). This position is challenged by Shri O. C. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the counsel for the landlady having accepted the amount tendered by the tenant on 4-11-1969, it was no longer open to the Rent Controller to hold that the tender was invalid. He submits that if the counsel for the landlady had objected to the amount, the tenant would been in a position then and there to pay the correct amount. He urges that the counsel for the landlady having accepted the amount tendered, it is no longer open to the landlady to say that what was tendered was not the full amount, and, therefore, ejectment should be ordered. I see great force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel relies on a decision of my brother A. S. Bains, J. in Santokh Singh v. Harnam Singh, 1976 RCR(Rent) 543 . That was a case in which the counsel for the landlord accepted the rent and made an endorsement which was as follows :-

(3.) It is true, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, that no such endorsement was made in the present case, but that makes on difference. The very acceptance of the tender by the counsel for the landlady amounted abandonment of the ground of non-payment of rent. If that were not the correct position, it would lead to abjured situations. For example, if the tenant makes an arithmetical mistake in calculating the arrears and tenders the amount which is short of the amount due by a few paise, he would still be liable to ejected on that ground notwithstanding the fact that the amount has been accepted by the landlord. This is certainly not a situation contemplated by the proviso to section 13(2)(i). It should also be borne in mind that if the landlord, without accepting the amount, then and there objects to the amount the tenant would have the opportunity of tendering the correct amount. The proviso is not to be construed in any pedantic sense but with a view to give full effect to the intention of the legislature which is that a tenant who pays or tenders the rent, interest and costs due from him should be protected from ejectment. The learned counsel for the respondent invites my attention to a decision of Mehar Singh, C.J. in Mangat Rai v. Ved Parkash, 1969 RCR(Rent) 96 . This case has no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case. The Civil Revision Application is, therefore, accepted, the orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority are set aside and the application for ejectment is dismissed. No costs.