PURAN CHAND HARI PARSHAD Vs. MANGAL NANAK SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this petition for revision of an order of the Appellate Authority under the east Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the Act,") (District judge), Ambala, dated October 23, 1967, upholding the order of dismissal of the petitioner' s application for eviction of the respondent, was admitted to a division Bench decisions on the question whether a defaulting tenant is bound to pay interest on the arrears of rent due from him up to the date of the application or right up to the date of making deposit before the Rent Controller, in order to absolve himself of the liability for ejectment under the proviso to Clause (i) of subsection (2) of Section 13 of the Act, another interesting question that has been raised by Mr. R. N. Mittal, learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner, related to the interpretation of Section 9 of the Act which permits a landlord to raise the rent of a tenant to the extent of any tax which may be levied in respect of the building or rented land after the commencement of the Act. These two questions have arisen in the following circumstances:-

(2.) THE petitioner, whom I will call the landlord in this judgment, filed an application for the eviction of the respondent, to whom I will hereinafter refer as the tenant', on January 4, 1966, on inter alia the ground that he had not paid or tendered the rent due from him in respect of the rented building, and had, therefore, incurred liability for ejectment under Clause (I) of sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Act. One day before the filing of the application for eviction, i. e. , on January 3, 1966, the tenant had deposited Rs. 126 on account of the arrears of rent under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act (7 of 1934) on the allegation that the landlord refused to accept the tender of that amount. On the first date of hearing, i. e. , on February 21, 1966, the tenant made a further deposit of Rs. 88 in the Court of the Rent Controller on the basis of the following calculations: (i)arrears of rent claimed by the landlord in paragraph 2 of his petition for eviction for the period April 1, 1964, to December 31, 1965 (ii)Interest on the abovementioned amount of arrears. . . . (iii)On account of costs. . . .

(3.) SHRI M. S. Nagra, Rent Controller, Jagadhri, by his order, dated February 22 1967, rejected the application of the landlord for the ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the latter had exonerated himself of his liability to ejectment on the ground of non-payment of rent because by making the abovesaid deposit of rs. 214 on or before the first date of hearing, he was entitled to take benefit of the relevant proviso which reads as follows:-