RAM CHANDER Vs. ABHEY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition directs challenge against orders dtd. 14/10/1998 passed by the Rent Controller, Mahendergarh and dtd. 14/6/1999 by the Appellate Authority, Narnaul whereby application for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent plus house tax was dismissed by the Rent Controller and appeal preferred by the landlord did not find favour with the Appellate Authority.

(2.) The petitioner claimed arrears of rent @ Rs.600.00 per month for the period from 20/8/1993 to 20/8/1995 and house tax for the said period total amounting to Rs.15,116.00. Counsel for the respondent-tenant therein made a statement dtd. 2/12/1995 (Annexure P-6) to the effect that rent from 20/8/1993 to 20/8/1995 i.e. of eight months @ Rs.600.00 per month, Rs.4800.00 and Rs.1200.00 rent from 20/4/1994 to 20/6/1994 of two months vide treasury challans No. 136 of 18/4/1994 and No. 95 dtd. 22/8/1995 respectively stood paid and balance rent of 14 months total Rs.8400.00 and Rs.450.00 of house tax and interest and costs was being deposited. Counsel for the petitioner would apprise that later the Rent Controller assessed interest on Rs.8400.00 and costs which were paid by the respondent.

(3.) Counsel would argue that the respondent appeared in the witness box and recorded his statement Annexure P7. He did not produce the challans vide which he purportedly deposited the rent as had been stated in statement recorded on 2/12/1995 nor he examined a witness from the Treasury office to prove deposit of rent. It is further argued that even otherwise in view of provisions of Sec. 6A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short "the Act"), the tenant can deposit the rent in court with the permission of the court if a landlord refuses to receive or grant a receipt for any rent payable in respect of the building or rented land when tendered to him by a tenant. It is argued with vehemence that respondent not only failed to prove deposit of rent in the treasury but he otherwise cannot take advantage of any such deposit. in view of the provisions of Sec. 6A of the Act. It is argued with vehemence that since the respondent did not deposit the outstanding arrears of rent along with house tax, interest and costs, judgments passed by the courts rejecting plea of the petitioner for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent cannot be allowed to sustain and liable to be set aside.