TARAMANI DEVI AGARWAL Vs. M/S. KRISHNA COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference is made by the learned District Judge, East and North at Gangtok under Section 113 of CPC. The question referred to us for consideration is as follows: -

(2.) WE have heard Mr. B.R. Pradhan, learned senior counsel for the defendant and Mr. Sudesh Joshi, learned counsel for the plaintiff in the trial Court. In our view the reference made by the learned trial Court appears to be unwarranted in view of the clear and categorical finding in the case of Tek Chand Agarwal (supra). In order to appreciate the facts and the circumstances leading to the reference and judgment in Tek Chand Agarwal's case, it is relevant to note that at the material time confusion had arisen as to the forum before which the tenants could deposit rent in the event of the landlords refusing to accept in order to protect themselves from the mischief of default and consequential liability of their eviction from the tenanted premises occupied by them as provided under the Gangtok Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1956. In that case, it was submitted that the practice of the tenants depositing rent in Court had been followed since the Rule of the Chogyal and that the practice ought to continue so that tenants will not be put to difficulties when the landlords refuse to accept rent.

(3.) IT is, therefore, apparent from the above that this Court had come to a finding that the Courts below were unnecessarily following the practice of accepting rent and thereafter issuing notices to the landlords who would appear before the Court to receive the amount when there was no such provision in the statute. It was thus observed that this Court is unnecessarily burdened with the additional work. It was then opined that it was upto the tenant to tender the rent to the landlord leaving the mode and method of such tender upon the tenants.