ASHOK KUMAR Vs. ROCHIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the present revision petition was the tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 125/- per month. He is carrying business in the premises in the name and style of Ashoka Electricals. He had paid rent upto October 1988. The rent for the month of November 1988 sent by Money Order to the non-petitioner No. 1 Rochiram was not accepted and was returned back with the endorsement of refusal. A registered notice was issued to the non- petitioner No. 1 on 19.12.1988 to accept the rent or to inform the name of the bank for deposit of rent. The said notice was replied by the non-petitioner No. 1 stating therein that he is no more concerned with the premises in question because he had sold the property to Rajendra Kumar Verma and Vidya Prakash Sharma.

(2.) THE petitioners in the present revision petition were the tenants on monthly rent of Rs. 121/- per month which was later on increased to Rs. 200/-. They are carrying business in the premises in the name and style of Jain Medical Store. They had paid rent upto October 1988. The rent for the month of November 1988 sent by Money Order to the non-petitioner No. 1 Rochiram was not accepted and was returned back with the endorsement of refusal. A registered notice was issued to the non-petitioner No. 1 on 19.12.1988 to accept the rent or to inform the name of the bank for deposit of rent. The said notice was replied by the non-petitioner No. 1 stating therein that he is no more concerned with the premises in question because he had sold the property to Rajendra Kumar Verma and Vidya Prakash Sharma.

(3.) IN the circumstances of the present cases, in my opinion, the trial court and the appellate court had committed an error of jurisdiction. It is a case where the tenants had never been told by the original landlord that the property in question had been sold to any other persons. Both the petitioners in the above said case tried to offer the rent to the original landlord who refused to accept the same. The money order was also sent back and in reply to the notice only a mention was made that the premises in question have been sold to Rajendra Kumar and one Vidhya Prakash. The new purchasers neither issued any notice nor informed the present tenants to deposit the rent or to pay the rent to them. It was obligatory for the new landlords to have informed the petitioners to the effect that because of the reason that the ownership of the premises have been changed and, therefore, the rent should be paid to the new owners, it was not done. The old landlord had refused to accept the rent and in my opinion, the tenants to avoid any disqualification for being evicted had taken right steps to apply under Section 19-A of the Act to deposit the rent in such circumstances. Of course, the law envisages that in case the rent is not accepted, the tenant has to ask for the bank account of the landlord if any, for deposit of the rent and if no reply is received, the tenant is at liberty to deposit the same in the court u/S 19-A of the Act. But such like situation is not available to the new landlords. Non-informing to the tenants of the change of ownership by the new landlords is to be construed that the tenants did not know as to whom the rent is to be paid or in whose account the rent is to be deposited, in such situation, if an application is made to the court u/s 19-A of the Act, the application is maintainable.