HARI PRASAD TAMOLI Vs. INDIRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's second appeal questioning the validity of the decree in ejectment passed by the trial court and confirmed in appeal by the District Judge of Santal Parganas, Dumka. The appellant was a monthly tenant under the land-lady of the suit premises, the monthly rental being Rs. 17. The decree for ejectment against him was passed on the ground that he was a defaulter and was liable to be evicted by not having paid the amount of six months' rent from January, 1966 to June, 1966 lawfully payable by and due from him.

(2.) Two submissions have been made by the appellant. First, it is contended by the learned counsel that the default being on the basis that the monthly rental was Rs. 17/- cannot afford a ground for eviction because the rent in arrears was unlawful under Section 4 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act III of 1947), it having been illegally enhanced from Rs. 13/-to Rs. 17/-. This contention was raised before the District Judge and was overruled, and, in my opinion, rightly. It was never the case of the defendant that he ever tendered or remitted by post the rent to the plaintiff even at the rate lawfully payable by him. He never offered the rent to the plaintiff for the months of January and February 1966, as stated in para. 7 of the plaint. The plaintiff mentioned therein that the cause of action for the suit arose on the 1st of April, 1966 when the defendant failed to pay the rent Of the suit premises for the months of January and February 1966 by the end of March 1966 and also when the defendant failed to quit the suit premises on determination of the tenancy and that the cause of action continued since then. Moreover, the trial court did not pass any decree for the arrears of rent because it had been deposited in court and withdrawn by the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, determination of this question was rightly considered to be irrelevant by the District Judge. I am also of the view that the question of the illegality of the amount of rent under Section 4 is not relevant for the purposes of this appeal. It would have assumed importance if the claim for arrears of rent would have been decreed. The central fact is that he made the default in payments of rent and became liable to be evicted on this ground. This point thus has no force.

(3.) His second contention is that as the defendant-appellant is willing to pay to the lessor the entire rent in arrear together with interest thereon and full costs of the suit, he should be given relief against the forfeiture of the tenancy as provided in Section 114 of the T. P. Act (briefly, the Act). This point raises the question of the true scope of Section 114. Section 114 provides as follows :--