JAI BHAGWAN Vs. SURAJ PARKASH BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the present case are that Jai Bhagwan is the landlord of the property in dispute and Suraj Parkash is his tenant. The tenant had been depositing rent under section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, from 1961 to 1968, in the Court of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Panipat. The total amount of deposits comes to Rs. 2461.23. On May 9, 1977, Suraj Parkash tenant filed an application for withdrawal of the amount. In the meanwhile, Jai Bhagwan landlord also approached the Court and moved an application on May 20, 1977 stating that he being the landlord, was entitled to the amount. He consequently, prayed that the vouchers of the amount may be given to him. This application was contested by Suraj Parkash, tenant who (sic) that he was entitled to the amount. The Subordinate Judge after hearing the parties, rejected the application of the landlord and ordered refined of the amount to Suraj Parkash, tenant. Jai Bhagvwah (sic) in revision against the said order of the Subordinate Judge of this Court.

(2.) IT is contended by Mr. H. S. Mittal, learned counsel for the landlord that the amount had been deposited to the tenant for payment to him (landlord). He further urges that in the circumstances, it is the landlord who is entitled to withdraw it had not the tenant. According to the learned counsel, if the amount (sic) deposited under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of indebtedness Act, in the debtor for payment to the creditor, it can be paid by the Court only to the creditor.

(3.) ON the other hand, the tenant went on depositing the rent under the impression that the deposit of rent under section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act was a proper tender. Supreme Court in Shri Vidya Prachar Trust v. Basant Ram, (1969) 71 P.L.R. 526, held that the deposit of arrears of the rent under section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act was not a valid tender of the rent within the scope of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act and did not save the tenant from the consequences of the default as contemplated by section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.