IQBAL SINGH SETHI Vs. MANGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision directed against judgment of the appellate Authority whereby his ejectment has been ordered on the ground of non-payment of rent.

(2.) EJECTMENT of the petitioner was sought by the land lord (respondent herein) on the ground of non-payment of rent. The case of the respondent was that the shop in question was let out to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 50.00 per month and the petitioner is liable to be ejected as he has failed to pay the rent. On notice of the eviction application, petitioner appeared and filed his written statement. Petitioner denied the rate of rent to be Rs. 50/ -. He stated that the rate of rent is Rs. 10.00 per month. He also stated that he has already made the payment of rent upto 31. 12. 1971. He, therefore, tendered the rent from 1. 1. 1972 to 31. 10. 1979 at the rate of Rs. 10/per month amounting to Rs. 940.00 plus Rs. 25.00 as interest. In addition to this amount, he also paid Rs. 25.00 as costs of the eviction application assessed by the Rent Controller. Respondent accepted the tender under protest. His case was that the rent tendered is short. In his replication, respondent stated that interest should have been tendered to the tune of Rs. 218. 55p instead of Rs. 25.00 Respondent also explained that he has received the rent upto 31. 12. 1971, but the rate of rent was increased to Rs. 50.00 from 1. 1. 1978. Rent Controller on the pleading of the parties, framed the following issues:1. What is the agreed rate of rent between the parties? 2. Whether the rent, tendered on the first date of hearing is valid, if so its effect? OPR.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in the revision petition. Section 13 (2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short the Act) states the grounds on which a landlord can seek eviction of his tenant. Clause (i) of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act says that a tenant will be liable to be evicted if he has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of a building or rented land within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord, or, in the absence of such agreement, by the last date of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. A proviso has been added to this clause requiring that a tenant can save himself from eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent if he, on the first date of hearing of the application for ejectment, pays or tenders the arrears of rent and interest @ 6 per cent per annum on such arrears together with costs of the application for eviction assessed by the Controller. Therefore, if the tenant tenders the rent in compliance with the proviso to clause (i) of Sub-section (2) of Section 13, he shall be deemed to have paid or tendered the rent within the period mentioned in clause (i ). In case the tenant fails to pay or deposit the amount of arrears of rent as required by Section 13 (2) (i), it is incumbent upon the Rent Controller to order eviction of the tenant. The object of the proviso is not that the landlord is to be deprived of the rent. The object is to give an opportunity to the tenant to stay in the premises irrespective of his default if the tenant on the first date of hearing pays the rent due. In this case, the appellate Authority has ordered eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the tender was invalid since the interest tendered was short. It is not in dispute that the eviction application was filed on 11. 9. 1979 and the rent due was with effect from 1. 1. 1972. Petitioner in response to notice of the eviction application appeared on 17. 10. 1979 and-tendered the rent from 1. 1. 1979 to 31. 10. 1979 at the rate of Rs. 10.00 per month. The rent tendered was Rs. 940/ -. He also tendered Rs. 25.00 towards interest. The interest calculated at the rate of 6 per cent on the rent due from 1. 1. 1972 to 31. 10. 1979 works out to Rs. 218. 60p whereas interest paid was Rs. 25.00 only. The interest so tendered being short, Rent Controller was under a mandate under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 to pass an eviction order against the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent. Counsel for the petitioner is not correct in saying that the landlord while accepting the rent never objected that the rent tendered is short. In fact, landlord not only on the first date of hearing while accepting the rent under protest as the rent tendered is short, but in his replication also, he stated that a sum of Rs. 218. 55p should have been tendered towards interest instead of Rs. 25/ -. Tenant had an opportunity to make good the deficiency in the shortfall of 'interest' before framing of the issues. He however failed to avail of the concession given to him under proviso to clause (i) of Sub-section (2 ). In these circumstances, it is not open to the tenant to say that the landlord had waived his right and is estopped from raising the plea that the interest tendered on the first date of hearing was not valid.