JOGINDER SINGH Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition the legality and validity of the orders of eviction passed by the authorities below have been challenged by the tenant-petitioner who has been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground of short tender of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 5.71 paise.

(2.) THE facts necessary for disposal of the revision petition are in a very narrow compass. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant on the ground that the arrears with effect from 15.12.1973 at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month were due from the tenant. The ejectment application was filed on 3rd June, 1975. The petitioner-tenant tendered the arrears of rent Rs. 510/- that is for a period of 16 months, besides, Rs. 30/- as costs and Rs. 25.50 as interest, totalling Rs. 565.50 on 11.9.1975. The amount was accepted under protest by the landlord. The learned Rent Controller found that the interest was required to be paid on the amount of arrears of rent till the date of payment that is the date of the first hearing of the application for eviction and, therefore, tender was short of Rs. 5.71. The finding of the learned Rent Controller was upheld by the Appellate Authority.

(3.) AFTER giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and after examining the case law cited at the Bar, I am of the view that the revision petition deserves to be allowed. In my considered view that tenant was not liable to pay rent for the month of May 1975 as the same had not become due on the date of the institution of the application. The wording of the Section 13(2)(i) of the Act in this respect is quite clear. As has been held in Khushi Ram v. Shanti Rani and others, 1964 Punjab Law Reporter 755 and Sant Singh v. M/s Finely and Company, 1967 Punjab Law Reporter 548 that the rent for a particular month does not become due until the last day of the next month. Even a bare reading of the provisions of Section 13(2)(i) of the Act makes it clear that only that tenant is liable to be evicted who has not paid or tendered the rent due from him in respect of the building within 15 days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy or in the absence of many such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. In the instant case, there is no term and condition in the agreement of tenancy to the contrary by which the tenant could be held liable to pay the rent of May, 1975 which would fall due only in the month of July, 1975. On the date of the institution of the application i.e. 4th June, 1975, the rent of only April, 1975 had become due and not the rent for the month of May, 1975. The wording of the rent note regarding the regular payment of rent month by month and the endorsement of the advance payment of rent on the back of the rent note does not and cannot mean that in the agreement of tenancy any time limit was fixed regarding the payment of advance rent. In view thereof, I am unable to accept the submission of the counsel for the landlord. It is undisputed that the tenant is entitled to adjust the excess payment of rent towards any short tender made by him by way of interest, costs etc. When the precise point of excess payment was argued before the Appellate Authority, it did not find favour with it on the ground that from the pleadings of the tenant and the statement made in the Court, he deposited the rent for 7 months which was due from him. I am afraid, the Appellate Authority has not taken into consideration the relevant statute and the case law and committed an apparent error of law.