Babu Lal v. Bhagu Mal — 1987 DIGILAW 452 (ALL)

JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru, J. - This is a tenant's revision under Sections 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment of the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff landlord for ejectment and arrears of rent. 2. The plaintiff has come with the allegation that the rent from 1-10-1984 to 31-1-1985 was due and despite the service of demand dated 13-2-1985, which was served on the tenant on 20-5-1985, the defendant had not paid the same and hence the tenant was liable to be ejected: 3. The plaintiff's further case was that the rent was Rs. 300 per month and in accordance with the provisions of the Act No. 13 of 1972 the defendant was liable to pay in addition water tax and sewer tax as a part of the rent. 4. The defence was that the water-tax and sewer-tax was included in the rent of Rs. 300.00 per month. The defendant had deposited some portion of the arrears of rent under Section 30(1) of the Act and he had deposited a sum of Rs. 25.100.00 at or before the first date of hearing, and as such he was entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of the Act. 5. The Trial Court found that the defendant was not entitled to get the benefit of the defendants made by him under Section 30(1) of the Act as no evidence was led by the defendant to show that he had tendered the rent to the plaintiff and the plaintiff declined to accept the rent before the deposits under Section 30(1) were made. It was further held that as the defendant was not entitled to make the deposit under Section 30(1) of the Act, he was not entitled to get the protection of Section 20(4) of the Act, as the deposit made at the first date of hearing fell short of the amount required to be deposited in order to get the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. It was farther held that if the defendant was entitled to make the deposit under Section 30(1) of the Act, then if that amount is added to the amount deposited at the first date of hearing, he would become entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of the Act. 6. It was farther held that if the defendant was entitled to make the deposit under Section 30(1) of the Act, then if that amount is added to the amount deposited at the first date of hearing, he would become entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of the Act. 6. The Trial Court has further found that the Water Tax and Sewer Tax were to be paid by the tenant in addition to the rent of Rs. 300.00 per month as a part of the rent. With these findings, the Trial Court had decreed the suit. 7. Sri, M.P. Singh, the learned Counsel for the applicant, has argued that the Trial Court was wrong in recording a finding that there was no evidence to show that the tenant had not tendered any rent to the plaintiff before making the deposit under Section 30(1) of the Act on 23-10-1984. He has referred to the money orders dated 5-7-1984 for a sum of Rs. 900.00 and another dated 4-8-1984 for a sum of Rs. 300.00 on which there was an endorsement that the addresses (plaintiff) had refused to accept the same. He submits that in the circumstances the defendant was entitled to make the deposit under Section 30(1) of the Act. 8. What had happened was that when the deposit was made under Section 30(1) of the Act, the Court issued a notice to the landlord on 23-3-1984 and fixed 9-12-1984. The landlord put in appearance on 13-11-1984 and filed objections saying that he was willing to accept the rent, It was ordered to be put on the date fixed, i.e. 9-12-1984. The case was taken up on 10-12-1984 and was ordered to be listed on 20-12-1984 the Court ordered that the tenant should pay the rent directly to the landlord and further ordered that if the landlord declined to accept the rent, then the same could either be deposited in Court or the tenant could make a fresh application. 9. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that the tenant did not pay any rent for the period which was demanded, namely 1-10-1984 to 31-1-1985. There is also no evidence that he tendered the rent to the plaintiff who declined to accept the same. 9. At this stage, it is necessary to clarify that the tenant did not pay any rent for the period which was demanded, namely 1-10-1984 to 31-1-1985. There is also no evidence that he tendered the rent to the plaintiff who declined to accept the same. On the face of it, after the order dated 20-12-1984 of the Court requiring the defendant to offer the rent to the plaintiff landlord, there was no justification on the part of the defendant for not offering the rent to the landlord. Sri M.P. Singh has urged that the order of the Court dated 20-12-1984 was not in the knowledge of the tenant. He submits that the order sheet of that date is not either signed by the tenant or by his Counsel. An affidavit of the Counsel, for the tenant had been put in saying that he was not present in Court when the order dated 20-12-1984 was made. In rebuttal, an affidavit of the Counsel for the plaintiff respondent has been put in saying that the order dated 20-12-1984 was made in presence of Counsel for the tenant. 10. Sri M.P. Singh urges that this aspect of the matter had not been investigated by the Court and the case should be remanded for fresh consideration by the Trial Court. 11. He further urges that as the landlord had declined to accept the rent tendered by the defendant which is evidenced by the money order coupons, referred to above, the tenant was entitled in law to make the deposits under Section 30(1) of the Act and consequently he was entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act. 12. This argument was not advanced before the Trial Court as there is no reference to it in the judgment of the Trial Court. There is no specific ground in the memorandum of revision that the order dated 20-12-1984 was made in the absence of the defendant and/or his Counsel. 13. 12. This argument was not advanced before the Trial Court as there is no reference to it in the judgment of the Trial Court. There is no specific ground in the memorandum of revision that the order dated 20-12-1984 was made in the absence of the defendant and/or his Counsel. 13. On the contrary, in Paragraph 9 of the written statement filed by the defendant, there is a clear assertion that when the tenant made the deposit under Section 30(1) of the Act, the plaintiff appeared and expressed the desire to accept the rent, but subsequently, when the tenant want to pay the rent, the plaintiff refused to accept the same and wanted a higher rent, Paragraph 9 of the written statement run as under :- " ;g fd /kkjk 9 ;gka rd Lohdkj gS fd tc oknh us mRrjnkrk ls fdjk;k ugha fy;k rks mRrjnkrk dks etcwju oknh ds irs ij fdjk;k euhvkMZj djuk iM+k vkSj mlds ckotwn oknh us fdjk;k ugha fy;k rks mRrjnkrk dks etcwju fdjk;k eqfUlQ 'kgj e0 dsl ua0 886@70 lu~ 84 esa tek djuk iM+k ftlesa oknh Lo;a gkftj vk;k Fkk ;g dguk fcydqy xyr gS fd oknh us fdjk;s ysus dh bPNk tkfgj dh ysfdu mlds ckotwn mRrjnkrk us oknh dks fdjk;k nsus x;k vkSj oknh fdjk;k ysus ls vkukdkuh dh blfy, cjkcj mRrjnkrk U;k;ky; eqfUlQ 'kgj esa fdjk;k tek vnk djrk jgkA " 14. In the face of Paragraph 9 of the written statement, the defendant's case that he had no knowledge of the order dated 20-12-1984, cannot be believed. The Trial Judge has found that there is no evidence of tender of rent) to the plaintiff after the order dated 20-12-1984 and consequently any subsequently deposit under Section 30(1) of the Act would not be legal. 15. The learned Counsel for the applicant has not referred me to any evidence to show that the tenant went to the landlord after the order dated 20-12-1984 and tendered the rent to the landlord. In this situation, the Trial Court was perfectly justified in recording a finding that the benefit of the deposits under Section 30(1) of the Act could not be availed of the tenant. Admittedly, the deposit made at the first date of hearing was only Rs. 5,100.00 which was short of the amount due to the plaintiff landlord as rent, costs of suits etc. 16. Admittedly, the deposit made at the first date of hearing was only Rs. 5,100.00 which was short of the amount due to the plaintiff landlord as rent, costs of suits etc. 16. The revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed with costs. The decree for eviction may be put into execution on the expiry of three months from today date April, 15, 1987.