VISHWANATH SINGH Vs. GOPIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case is a tenant who had rented shop No. 2 in Saraogi Building situated inside Kotegate in Bikaner City.

(2.) NON-petitioner is the landlord. The monthly rent of the shop is Rs. 14/-excluding electricity and other charges. Prior to the institution of the present suit on 22nd January, 1947, two more suits were filed by the landlord for rent and eviction. The first suit was dismissed because no notice to terminate the tenancy was served upon the tenant. In the second suit the tenant deposited all the arrears of rent etc. in compliance of the provisions of section 13a of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950 (hereinafter called the Act) which had come into force during the pendency of those proceedings.

(3.) IN my opinion the language of sub-sec. 2 is plain and unambiguous and the words 'such rent' occurring in sub-sec. (2) refer to any rent in the first part of sub-sec. (2) which is tendered by the tenant and has not been accepted by the landlord. Whether it be the first deposit or subsequent deposit the condition precedent of tender and refusal by the landlord has to be satisfied otherwise it will not be regarded as a valid deposit so as to be a full discharge of the tenant from the liability to pay rent to the landlord. I am fortified in my view by the two decisions of the Calcutta High Court in Kabiraj Srinarayan Sarma vs. Baijnath Bhartia (2) and Manikchand Durgaprosad & Bros. vs. Bulakidas Baheti (3 ). IN both these cases provision of see. 21 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 which is almost similar to the provisions of sec. 19a of the Act, came up for consideration and it was held in Kabiraj's case (2) that: The proviso to sec. 21 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 shows that in the case of deposits of rent for successive months during any continuous period it is not necessary for the tenant to make another affidavit in support of his application for deposit before the Rent Controller if the reasons and circumstances which led to the first deposit continue to be the same. This specific mention dispensing with the filing of an affidavit in the case of subsequent deposits show that all other requirements and formalities involved in making a deposit should be the same in the case of a first deposit. Besides, the language of sec. 21 (1) puts the matter beyond all doubts. If; says where the landlord does not accept any rent tendered by the tenant within the time referred to in Sec 4 the tenant may deposit such rent with the Rent Controller in the prescribed manner. The words 'such rent' towards the latter part of this subsection obviously refer to 'any rent' in the first part and must obviously mean rent for every month. Every deposit must, therefore, be preceded by a proper tender and a refusal on the part of the landlord to accept the tender. Unless the deposits are valid and in conformity with sec. 21 of the Act, the deposits cannot cure the defaults for the respective months. Where the tenant deposited rent before the Rent Controller beginning from December 1957 upto October 1958 without tendering them before to the landlord, held all deposits were invalid since they were made in contravention of sec. 21 and the tenant was guilty of four defaults so that he was not entitled to the protection afforded by sec. 17 (4 ). and in Manickchands case (3) that: "it is only when the deposit is made in the prescribed manner, and also in the circumstances specified in S. 21 that the deposit is a valid deposit and can be treated as a deposit of rent. A deposit is permitted only under two circumstances, first where the landlord does not accept any rent tendered by the tenant within the time referred to in S. 4 and secondly where there is a bona fide doubt as to the person or persons to whom rent is payable. These are condition precedent which must be satisfied for a deposit of rent to be valid. Therefore, in a case where the tenant deposited amounts representing rents into Court without first tendering them to the landlord, it was held that there having been no refusal on the part of the landlord to receive rents, the deposits were invalid and of no effect, so much so, the tenant must be held to have committed default in payment of rents. "