LRS OF DEV KUMAR Vs. PARAS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The appellant-tenant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 14th Sept. 1994 passed by the trial Court and against which the appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the first appellate court on 15th Sept., 1995. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction against the defendant on the ground (i) second default committed by the defendant-tenant & (ii) second is non-user of the premises in question without any reasonable cause. The trial Court decreed the suit on both the counts, but the appellate court reversed the finding of non-user of the premises and decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of second default committed by the defendant-tenant. However, the first appellate court did not agree with the reasons given by the trial court for holding tenant defaulter, but recorded its own reasons for holding defendant-tenant as defaulter for the period in dispute.

(2.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant tendered the rent to the landlord by money-order and in view of the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court even one of the mode is if adopted by the tenant for tendering the rent to the landlord, then that is sufficient to absolve the tenant from the liability of the eviction on the ground of default. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in this case, the appellant-tenant sent the rent by money-order cannot be disputed because the tenant has placed on record relevant document by which the rent was deposited by the tenant under the provisions of Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.

(3.) AFTER going through all the facts and circumstances, which are not in dispute, it is clear that the plaintiff's claim was that the defendant committed second default and has not paid rent from May, 1982 to Dec., 1985 and therefore, he is liable to be evicted. Assuming for the sake of argument, what has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant is correct that the rent from 1st Oct., 1979 to 30th April, 1982 were deposited in Court, at different occasions under the provisions of Section 19-A of the Act of 1950, still it is not in dispute that rent from May, 1982 to Dec., 1985 was deposited by the tenant-defendant on 20th Dec., 1985 after long delay and after maturing the cause in favour of the plaintiff out of default committed by the tenant. It is not in dispute that no money-order was sent by the appellant-tenant for the rent of this period i.e. from May, 1982 to Dec., 1985 to the landlord before depositing the rent in the Court. The default making tenant liable for eviction completed by non-payment of rent from May, 1982 to Dec., 1985 and thereafter the landlord was not under obligation to even accept the rent sent, if it would have been sent to the landlord by the money-order and the landlord was not under obligation to waive the default committed by the tenant. Therefore, in view of the above reason, I do not find any point of law much less to any substantial question of law. The appeal of the appellant is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.