SUKH RAM Vs. SAT PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition raises interesting points of law regarding interpretation of section 12 of the J&K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the ËœAct). The brief facts which have given rise to this petition are:

(2.) THE counter - petitioner brought a suit, for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioner on the solitary ground of three. defaults in payment of rent within the meaning of proviso to Sub section (3) of section 12 of the Act, alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. According to the counter petitioner the tenancy commenced from 1 -10 -1974, Which was a month to month tenancy; the rent fixed being Rs. 50/ per month. Only one months rent i.e. for the month of October, 1974 was paid by the petitioner and a sum of1,550/ -was thus due from ,him for a period of 3l months, till 31 -5 -1977. This suit was brought on 6 -6 -1977. The petitioner in his written statement ,did not dispute the rate of rent but pleaded, that rent for a total period of 18 months only wag due from him. He for the reasons stated in the written statement, denied that he was guilty of committing any default in payment of rent; muchless three such defaults. In this background he prayed that a decree for arrears of rent may be passed against him, but the suit so far as it related to ejectment may be dismissed. Thereafter, the counter -petitioner made two applications. In the earlier one, which was made on 10 -1 -1978, he prayed that the petitioner may be directed to deposit the suit amount as well. as the rent due from 1 -6 -1977 till the Ëœdate of the application, and he be further directed to deposit the rent which fell due every month thereafter, and on his failure to comply with the order of the court, his defence to the suit may be struck of. In the later application made on 9th March 1978 he prayed, that the petitioner having admitted the claim of arrears of rent, a decree to that extent may be passed against him under the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But these applications were contested by the petitioner on a variety of grounds. By a common order, the trial court dismissed; the application filed -on 9th March, 1978 but allowed the one filed on 10th January, 1978 and directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent claimed in the suit, as well as rent due from 1 -6 -1977 till the date of application and further directed him to deposit the rent falling due every month thereafter. It was, however, held that there was only one default in payment of rent and not three as alleged by the counter -petitioner. It is this order, which has been challenged in this revision petition.

(3.) MR . Gupta, appearing for the petitioner has raised two grounds in support of the petition. One, that the trial court was bound to determine the exact figure of the entire rent due till the date of the impugned order on taking evidence of the parties and two that it having found that Only one default was proved, the trial court ought to have made a direction in its order in terms of Sub -section (3) of section 12 of the Act that on the rent being deposited the suit shall stand dismissed. It is common ground that the suit is governed by the provisions of the Act. There is also no challenge to the finding of the "trial court that only one default within the meaning of CL (i) of the proviso to Sub -section (1) of section 11 of the Act is proved. Even a -single default in payment of rent -could entitle a landlord to seek ejectment of his tenant under CL (i) provided the procedure laid down, in section 12 has - been followed. Cl. (i) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section 11 reads thus: (i) subject to the provisions of section 12, where the amount of two months rent legally payable by the tenant and due from him is in arrears by not having been paid within the time fixed by contract, or in the absence of such contract, by the fifteenth day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable or by not having been validly deposited in accordance with section 14; Provided that no such amount shall be deemed to be in arrears unless the landlord on the rent becoming due serves a notice in writing through Post Office under a registered cover on the tenant to pay or deposit the arrears within, a period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of such notice and the tenant fails to pay or deposit the said arrears within the specified period."