VISHWA RATTAN Vs. RAM KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant who has suffered defeat at the hands of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority has come up in revision before this Court under section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (the Punjab Act for short) read with section 21 (5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971.

(2.) The dispute relates to a shop -building located at the Mall in the city of Simla. The building was owned by one Roshan Lai Sood and was in occupation of the tenant Chint Ram on a monthly rent of Rs. 169 Roshan Lai Sood sold the building to the present landlords M/s. Ram Krishan and Sons, a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The sale -deed authorised the vendee to recover the arrears of rent from the tenant from 1st January 1969. The tenant Chint Ram was running a Photo Studio in the demised premises in partnership with his sons under the firm name M/s. Photo Studios. There were disputes between the landlords and the tenant Chint Ram as to whether the demise was in favour of the firm Photo Studios or personally to Chint Ram. M/s. Photo Studios through one of its partners Vijay Sood on 12 -5 -1970 instituted Civil Suit No. 55/70 on the file of the Senior Sub -Judge Simla for a declaration that the firm M/s. Photo Studios is the tenant of the demised premises. While that suit was pending the landlords on 2 -6 -1970 filed the present petition for eviction against Chint Ram, under section 13 of the Punjab Act on the ground that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1st of January 1969 onwards. Advocate Sh. Chandu Pal Sood, appearing for the tenant Chint Ram at the first hearing of the petition on 2 -9 -70 tendered a sum of Rs. 3,500 by way of arrears of rent, interest and costs on behalf of M/s. Photo Studios as though the said firm is the tenant of the demised premises Since the tender was not on behalf of the tenant Chint Ram the landlords refused to accept the same and the case went up for trial before the Rent Controller. The landlords had also filed Civil Suit No. 145 of 1971 for recovery of arrears of rent from 1st January 1969 to 30th April 1971 and another suit No. 269 of 1971 for the subsequent arrears of rent against Chint Ram. In both the suits, Chint Ram had raised the contention that he is not the tenant and the demise of the premises was in favour of the firm M/s. Photo Studios. The three suits, Civil Suit Nos. 55/70, 145/71 and 269/71 were consolidated and by a common judgment Ex. P -3 dated 2 -4 -1979 the Senior Sub -Judge held that the demise of the premises was in favour of Chint Ram and not to the partnership firm M/s Photo Studios. On these findings, Civil Suit No. 55 of 1970 filed by M/s. Photo Studios was dismissed and the other two suits for arrears of rent were decreed. Meanwhile, Chint Ram died on 11 -7 -1973 pending these proceedings. His widow Shakuntla was brought on record in the rent control proceedings by an application made by the landlords in that behalf. His sons who were partners of the firm were also brought on record on their application as legal representatives of Chint Ram.

(3.) The sons of Chint Ram had, after the decree for arrears of rent passed by the Subordinate Court, deposited the entire arrears in the Court of the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller on 4th November, 1981 passed an order for eviction of the tenant on his findings that the rent was in arrears from 1st January 1969 onwards and it was not paid or tendered at the first hearing of the petition for eviction. It was held that the tender made by Advocate Sh. Chandu Lal Sood was not proper as the tender was not on behalf of the tenant Chint Ram but on behalf of the firm M/s. Photo Studios whose suit for declaration of its tenancy had been dismissed by the Civil Court. The decision of the Rent Controller was affirmed in appeal by the appellate authority. That authority has found that the tender of arrears of rent made on behalf of M/s. Photo Studios was not a proper tender and hence the tenant is not entitled to the benefits of proviso (2) to section 13 (2) (i) of the Punjab Act. No other question is seen raised before the Rent Controller and the appellate authority.