SUKHDEV RAJ Vs. RUKMANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was admitted to a Division Bench to resolve the conflict in the two decisions of this Court in Buta Singh v. Banwari Lal and others, 1985(2) RCR 256; 1984(2) RLR 178 and Sawa Ram v. Naubat Ram and another, 1984(2) R.L.R. 702.

(2.) SMT . Rukmani Devi respondent No. 1 filed this petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short called the 'Act') for ejectment of the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from the shop in dispute on the grounds of non-payment of rent since October 26, 1975 and sub-letting alleging that the demised premises were let out to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 at a monthly rent of Rs. 15/- who had further sublet it to Siri Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, and one Ramesh Kumar whose name was later on deleted at the request of respondent No. 1. The petition was contested by Siri Ram alone, who claimed himself to be the direct tenant under respondent No. 1, and tendered the amount Rs. 574/- as assessed by the Rent Controller together with an additional amount of Rs. 25/- on February 25, 1980, which was not accepted on the plea that it was not only short but had been tendered after the expiry of the period prescribed under the Act. The Rent Controller held that the petitioner was a direct tenant and rejected the plea of sub tenancy. The tender of the arrears of rent, however, was held to be invalid having been not made within the prescribed time and, so the ejectment of the petitioner was ordered. The Appellate Authority affirmed the order of ejectment relying on the decision in Buta Singh's case (supra). Still dissatisfied, the tenant has come up in this Revision.

(3.) THOUGH there is no direct case of any High Court on the point at hand, but in somewhat similar circumstances relief was declined to the plaintiff in the decisions next following. In Ouseph Varghese v. Joseph Alay and others, (1970) 1 Supreme Court Reports 921, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific enforcement of an alleged agreement. The defendant denied the agreement and pleaded a different agreement in respect of only one item from the schedule of properties attached with the plaint. The High Court granted a decree qua that item on the admission of the defendant. The decree was set aside by the Supreme Court observing thus :-