Case: Duli Chand Vs. Maman Chand (Dead) By Lrs

2. The appellant is the landlord; the respondent is the tenant. The appellant made an application on May 2, 1964 under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rent Act") before the Rent Controller, Bhiwani for ejectment of thefrom the shop in dispute on the ground that the respondent had failed to pay rent for the period from February 1, 1964 to March 31, 1964 in addition to house tax and water tax. According to the appellants application the respondent was to pay Rs. 50 p.m. as rent.3. On May 25, 1964, which was the date of first hearing, the respondent made an application to the Rent Controller, stating that he had deposited Rs. 109.37 in the Government Treasury under the orders of the Court of the Rente on April 14, 1964 towards the rent for the months of February and March 1964 and thereafter a further amount towards the rent of April 1964, under the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the "Relief Act") to the credit of the landlord, about which notice had been issued to the latter. Along with that application, he further tendered Rs. 28.75 (including Rs. 0.75 towards interest, Rs. 25 towards cost and Rs. 3 for overhead expenses), and deposited the same in the court to the credit of the appellant on April 14, 1964, because the latter declined to accept the amount tendered saying that the tender was not in compliance with the proviso to(2) of Section 13 of the Rent Act.4. In his written statement, the respondent pleaded that thehad brought as many a 4 eviction applications against him within a period of two years and all those applications had been dismissed; that the present application was not sustainable because the respondent was not in arrears; that he had tendered the rent month by month as it fell due, in the presence of respectable persons, but the landlord had declined to accept the tenders being motivated by mala fides. He further pleaded that the landlord had due notice of the deposit of rent for the three months in question before filing the present application for eviction.5. The Rent Controller did not frame any issue, nor did he call upon the respondent to adduce evidence regarding his plea that he had tendered the rent due every month according to law but the landlord had, from mala fide motive, declined to accept the same. The Rent Controller, however, held that the rent deposited by the tenant to the credit of the landlord under Section 31 of the Relief Act, was a valid tender and payment to the landlord for the purpose of Section 13(2) of the Rent Act and dismissed the landlords application for eviction. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the landlord preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, who following the judgment of the High Court in Mamchand v. Chhotu Ram ((1964) 66 Punj L R 93), dismissed the appeal. The landlords revision was also dismissed by the High Court on October 15, 1965.6. Hence this appeal.

Reasoning: 10. Mr. Andley drew our attention to the order made by the Rent Controller on the application of the tenant, whereby he had sought permission to deposit the rent for the months of February and March 1964. In this order on that application, the Rent Controller has said that the tenant could make the deposit at his own responsibility. Even so, it does not alter the fact that the money was in the custody and control of the Rent Controller and was available for payment to the landlord, at the first hearing. The whole object of the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) is to give the defaulting tenant a final opportunity to stave off his eviction on the ground ofof rent, by paying or tendering on the first date of hearing of the eviction petition the arrears of rent together with interest and costs. The tenant by making the deposit of the arrears of rent and interest and costs, and informing the landlord at the first hearing that he could receive the same from the Court, had substantially complied with the requirement of the said proviso.11. In the view we take, it is not necessary to send the case back to the Rent Controller for trying the issue as to whether the tenant had, according to the allegation in the written statement, regularly tendered the rent month by month for February, March and April 1964, to the landlord and the latter had unjustifiably refused to receive the same.