1990 (2) TMI 304 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the arrears of rent deposited by the tenant u/s 13(2)(i) proviso of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
2. Allegations of sub-letting and material alterations impairing the value and utility of the premises.
3. Interpretation of the term "tenant" u/s 2(h)(i) of the Act.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Arrears of Rent Deposited:
The appeal concerns the scope and construction of Section 13 sub-section 2(i) proviso of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The primary issue is the validity of the arrears of rent deposited by the tenant under the proviso. The appellants tendered the arrears of rent, interest, and costs on the first date of hearing, but the landlord did not accept the amount, claiming it was neither legal nor valid as one of the respondents, Saligram, was a sub-tenant. The Rent Controller found the tender invalid since Saligram was not a tenant. The appellate authority and the High Court upheld this view, relying on precedents set by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ram Gopal and Onkar Mal cases, which held that only the tenant as defined under the Act could deposit or tender the amount under the proviso.

2. Allegations of Sub-letting and Material Alterations:
The landlord sought eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent, sub-letting, and material alterations impairing the value and utility of the premises. The Rent Controller found no substance in the allegations of material alterations but accepted the case of unauthorized sub-letting, holding that Saligram was a sub-tenant inducted without the landlord's consent. Consequently, the eviction petition was accepted, and the tenant's eviction was directed.

3. Interpretation of the Term "Tenant":
The Court examined the definition of "tenant" u/s 2(h)(i) of the Act and the context of Section 13 sub-section (2)(i) proviso. The Court recognized that the proviso was intended to protect tenants from eviction due to non-payment of rent by allowing them to tender arrears on the first date of hearing. The Court held that the obligation to tender rent under the proviso does not depend on the existence of an admitted jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The benefit of the proviso could be availed of by the tenant and those claiming to be tenants. The Court overruled the contrary view expressed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ram Gopal and Onkar Mal cases, stating that a narrow interpretation would lead to arbitrary and unjust results.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the appellate authority, as affirmed by the High Court, was reversed. The matter was remitted to the appellate authority for disposal in light of the observations made and in accordance with the law. No order as to costs was made.