9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent has been paying rent regularly. 2. Whether the respondent has deposited the arrears of rent in the Court on the first hearing, and if so, what is its effect? Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the respondent has been paying rent regularly: The landlords presented an application to the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant on the grounds that the tenant had failed to pay the rent from August 1954 to the end of November 1955. The tenant admitted the factum of lease but contended that he had deposited the entire rent due on the first hearing, thus no question of default arose. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority decided against the tenant, granting the landlords' prayer for eviction based on the precedent set by Mehar Singh J. in Gopal Mal v. Firm Dwarka Dass and Company. 2. Whether the respondent has deposited the arrears of rent in the Court on the first hearing, and if so, what is its effect: The primary issue for consideration was the interpretation of the proviso to Clause (i) of Section 13(2) of the Patiala and East Punjab States Union Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. Mehar Singh J. in Gopal Mal's case interpreted the proviso to mean that the deposit must consist of the entire amount due as arrears up to the date of the first hearing. In contrast, Bhandari C. J. in Jagdish Parshad's case construed it to mean that the amount to be deposited should only be the amount due as arrears according to the landlord's application up to the date on which the application for ejectment is made. The counsel for the petitioner argued in favor of the interpretation in Jagdish Parshad's case, emphasizing that the arrears for the purposes of the proviso should be construed in the same sense as "the rent due from him" used in Clause (i). The landlords' counsel contended that the word "arrears" should mean arrears up to the date of the first hearing. The court agreed with the interpretation in Jagdish Parshad's case, stating that the proviso confers a favor on the tenant, allowing them to make good their default on the first date of the hearing. The Legislature intended the proviso to benefit the tenant and not to place an additional burden on them to pay rent due after the landlord's petition. The court further explained that the word "arrears" in the proviso should be construed to connote the same amount of arrears of rent due from the tenant for which the landlord made a grievance in his petition. The tenant had deposited a sum of Rs. 285/- on the first date of hearing, which exceeded the rent due up to the date of the landlord's petition (Rs. 240/-) and covered the interest on the arrears of rent. The court found no merit in the landlords' contention that the deposit was inadequate. Conclusion: The revision was allowed, and the orders of the Appellate Authority and the Rent Controller were set aside. The petition of the landlord was dismissed, with both parties bearing their own costs throughout.
|
