1986 (12) TMI 377 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the tender of arrears of rent within the meaning of the proviso to Section 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
2. Interpretation of the term "first hearing" in the context of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Tender of Arrears of Rent:
The primary issue in this case was whether the tenant's tender of arrears of rent, interest, and costs on 2.7.1969 was valid under the proviso to Section 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The tenant-appellant had deposited Rs. 336 for arrears of rent from 13.2.1968 to 12.6.1969, Rs. 15 as interest, and Rs. 25 as costs on 2.7.1969. The Rent Controller initially found this tender invalid, stating that the tenant failed to tender the amount on the first hearing date, 26.6.1969. However, the appellate authority reversed this decision, holding that the tenant could not be penalized for the Rent Controller's failure to assess the costs on 26.6.1969. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, on revision, reinstated the Rent Controller's order, stating that the tender on 2.7.1969 was not valid as it was not made on the first hearing date.

2. Interpretation of "First Hearing":
The Supreme Court's judgment focused on the interpretation of the term "first hearing" under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Court examined whether 26.6.1969, the date mentioned in the summons for the tenant's appearance, constituted the "first hearing." The Supreme Court held that the "first hearing" does not refer to the returnable date of the summons but to the date when the court applies its mind to the case, typically after the issues are framed or evidence is taken. This interpretation aligns with previous judgments, including Ved Prakash v. Vishwa Mohan [1981] 3 SCC 667, where the Court held that "first hearing" occurs when the court begins to consider the case substantively.

The Supreme Court drew parallels with similar provisions in other rent control statutes, such as Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and Section 12 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947. The Court noted that these statutes also interpret "first hearing" as the stage when the court actively engages with the case, not merely the returnable date of the summons.

The Court concluded that the term "first hearing" in the context of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act should be interpreted to promote the Act's objective of protecting tenants from arbitrary eviction. Therefore, the tenant's tender on 2.7.1969, when the Rent Controller assessed the costs, was deemed valid.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order of eviction and confirming the appellate authority's judgment dismissing the eviction application. The Court emphasized that the "first hearing" refers to the date when the court substantively considers the case, not the initial appearance date. This interpretation ensures that tenants are not unfairly penalized due to procedural delays beyond their control. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.