KIRPA RAM Vs. SURAJ BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole question involved in this petition under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the order of the Appellate Authority dated September 28, 1973, is as to whether the tender of the arrears of rent made on February 9, 1974 is a valid tender or not The tender was made by Suraj Bhan as Karta of the joint Hindu Family Firm Messrs. Suraj Bhan Sita Ram According to the petitioner landlord, his tenant was Suraj Bhan in his personal capacity, and, therefore, the tender made was not a valid tender.

(2.) THE tenancy in dispute started in the year 1966 vide rent note, Exbihit A 3, on April 18, 1966 This rent note was executed by Suraj Bhan describing himself as the proprietor of the firm Messrs Suraj Bhan Sita Ram but the respondent pleaded that he took the shop in dispute on lease as manager of the joint Hindu family and that the firm Messrs Suraj Bhan Sita Ram was a firm of the said family The Rent Controller, after recording the evidence of the parties held that Suraj Bhan was the tenant in his personal capacity and as the tender was made by the firm owned by the joint Hindu family it was not a valid tender. The application was, however, dismissed on the ground that the tenancy had not been terminated by a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The finding of the Rent Controller was reversed, on appeal, by the Appellate Authority holding that the shop has been taken on lease by Suraj Bhan in his capacity as the Karta of the joint Hindu family firm Messrs Suraj Bhan Sita Ram. Consequently the order of the Rent Controller, was confirmed on both the grounds, that is non -termination of the tenancy as well as the tender of the arears of rent. Still dissatisfied, the landlord has come up in this revision petition.

(3.) STILL the question remains as to whether the tender made was a valid tender. As observed earlier the tender was made by Suraj Bhan describing himself as the manager of the joint Hindu family firm Messrs Suraj Bhan Sita Ram. It has been found as a fact that there is no firm of the joint Hindu family known as Messrs Suraj Bhan Sita Ram and this firm which Suraj Bhan claims to be of the joint Hindu family it owned by him in his personal capacity. The tender made by Suraj Bhan, therefore, is deemed to have been made as the manager of the firm Messrs Suraj Bhan Sita Ram of which he is the sole proprietor. This has been all through the case of the landlord also When it has been found as a fact that there is no firm of the joint Hindu family known as Messrs Suraj Bhan Sita Ram, it cannot be said that the tender was made by the joint Hindu family firm merely because Suraj Bhan described this firm owned by the joint Hindu family. The landlord also cannot be allowed to take a contradictory stand inasmuch as, on the one hand, he says that there is no firm of the joint Hindu family known as Messrs Suraj Bhan Sita Ram of which Suraj Bhan is the Karta and, on the other hand, that the tender was made by Suraj Bhan as Karta of the Joint Hindu family firm. In these circumstances the only Conclusion which can be reasonably drawn would be that the tender was made by Suraj Bhan and the fact that he described himself as the manager of the firm Messrs Suraj Bhan Sita Ram which according to him was the joint Hindu family does not make the slightest difference.