DEVI DARSHAN SINGH Vs. LAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's revision application from the appellate order, dated May 18, 1968, of the appellate authority under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act 3 of 1949). The landlord let out the demised premises, a shop, in Pacca Bagh, Julluddur City, on a rental of Rs. 40/ - per mensem. The condition in the rent note was that the rent was payable every month in advance. Subsequently on tenant's application fair rent was fixed at Rs. 25/ - per mensem. So the lair rent was a reduction of Rs. 15/ - in regard to the contractual rent agreed to between the parties.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY the landlord sought eviction of the tenant under section 13(2) of the Act for non payment of arrears. The tenant made a tender of the arrears with costs of the application and interest in the terms of proviso to clause (i) of sub -section (2) of section 13 of the Act but under protest. The landlord turned round and said that it was a conditional tender and thus not a valid tender. On this the appellate authority has found against the landlord. But the appellate authority has further found that even when the amount tendered is taken into consideration, it falls short by one rupee and 30 paise of the amount that should have been tendered in view of the arrears of rent due, with interest on the same, and the costs of the application in terms of proviso to clause (1) of sub section (2) of section 13 of the Act. The Learned Counsel for the tenant is unable to deny this but his argument is that this question of such deficiency cannot arise because the appellate authority has in its calculations calculated one month's additional rent which should not have been calculated. But the appellate authority has explained that the extra one month's tent was calculated because the rent was payable in the terms of the rent note by the tenant in advance. The Learned Counsel for the tenant is unable to deny that if the rent in fact is payable in advance then the approach of the appellate authority is unexceptional. His argument is that fair rent of the demised shop having been fixed by the Rant Controller, the original rent note ceased to have any binding force as a contract between the parties He takes the position that on the fixation of the fair rent a new relationship with new conditions of tenancy came into existence between the parties, and, therefore, under the new relationship the conditions in the original rent note for payment of advance rent every month cannot be invoked by the landlord. This to my mind is an argument which is up sound. The reason is that the order fixing the fair rent merely reduced the contractual late of rent of Rs. 40/ - per mensem, to Rs. 25/ - per mansum, but it did not affect the other terms of contract about the tenancy between the parties. The fixation of the fair rent did not touch the term between the parties that the rent is to be payable in advance every month. So this argument is untenable.

(3.) IN consequence, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs, counsel fee being Rs. 80/ -. The tenant is allowed one month from today within which to vacate the premises.