LACHHMAN DASS Vs. KUNTI INSANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A rent note was executed by the tenant, Lachhman Dass, on June 14, 1961, in favour of Kunti daughter of Piara Lal, taking on rent the house in question from her at a rental of Rs. 25/- per mensem. An application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act III of 1949), was made by Kunti against the tenant for his eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The application was filed by her father Piara Lal showing her to be of unsound mind on the date of application which is January 2, 1965.

(2.) In his written reply the tenant said that up to February 16, he was in arrears in the amount of Rs. 15/-, whereafter by money order he sent Rs. 24.50, to the landlord which were received on March 16, and after that on and from April 15, 1963, on which date he was in arrears to the amount of Rs. 40.45, he started paying rent to the property tax authorities under Section 14 of the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1940 (Punjab Act XVII of 1940), on a notice having been given to him to do so. Since then he said he has continued to pay rent regularly to the property tax authorities and was not in arrears. On the first date of hearing of the application he made a tender of Rs. 40.50 as arrears of rent with Rs. 5/- as interest on the same and Rs. 25/- as costs of the application as assessed by the Rent Controller.

(3.) The only question before the authorities below was whether payment by the tenant pursuant to a notice under Section 14 of Punjab Act XVII of 1940 was a payment to the landlord. Admittedly Piara Lal is the owner of the house. But the tenant executed the rent note not in the name of Piara Lal or in his favour, but in the name of his daughter Kunti and in her favour. So he has been a tenant of Kunti and not of Piara Lal. The learned counsel for the tenant contends that the fact of the matter is that the tenant has been a tenant of Piara Lal, the owner of the house, though the latter obtained a rent note from him in favour of his daughter Kunti, but this was neither the stand of the tenant in his written statement nor was this an argument on his side either before the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority. The learned counsel has then urged that Kunti is insance and it follows that she could not have let the house to the tenant, but she is shown insane in the heading of the application in 1965 when the eviction application was made and from that it cannot be concluded that she was insane in 1961 when the tenant executed the rent note in her favour. No doubt where the owner of a property is in arrears of property tax, the person in possession of the property, on notice, becomes liable to pay future rent under Section 14 of Punjab Act XVII of 1940 to the property tax authorities, failing which he becomes liable to penalty prescribed in Section 15 of that Act. But this is only when the tenant is by statute obliged to make payment to the property tax authorities in case of an arrear of tax payable by is landlord, but if he is not the tenant of the owner of the property, no claim under Section 14 of Punjab Act XVII of 1940 can be made against him if there are any arrears of property tax due from the owner. In this case the tenant was not the tenant of the owner but of the daughter of the owner. So if there were arrears of property tax against the owner, he was not liable to pay future rent according to Section 14 of Punjab Act XVII of 1940 to the property tax authorities. He raised no objection in this respect before those authorities for if he had done so, they could not have proceeded against him either under Section 14 or Section 15 of that Act. This is a hard case in which probably the tenant has in good faith made payment to the property tax authorities, as possibly feeling that he may not become liable to penalty under Section 15 of Act XVII of 1940 but all the same he has not made payment of the rent to the landlord on her behalf to the statutory authorities under Punjab Act XVII of 1940. So far as the landlord is concerned, he is in arrears of rent which he has not cleared even according to the proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of East Punjab Act III of 1949. So the authorities below were right in ordering eviction in this case. This revision application is dismissed, but there is no order with regard to costs. The tenant is allowed three months' time within which to vacant the house in question.