Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1108 (PNJ)

Rajinder Kumar v. Wazir Singh

2002-10-23

V.M.JAIN

body2002
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the tenant against the orders passed by the courts below, whereby the Rent Controller had ordered ejectment of the petitioner tenant from the demised premises and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the lower appellate authority. 2. Facts in brief are that Wazir Singh, landlord filed an ejectment petition against Rajinder Kumar, tenant, under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, seeking his ejectment from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent @ 200/- per month w.e.f. 1.10.1982. The petition was contested by the tenant and it was alleged that he had tendered the arrears of rent alongwith interest and cost. On the pleadings of the parties. Learned Rent Controller framed the issue as to whether the tender made on 23.10.1984 is a valid tender. After hearing both sides, learned Rent Controller found that tender should have been made on 20.10,1984 and that tender made on 23.10.1984 was not a valid tender. Resultantly, order of ejectment was passed. Appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed by the appellate authority, upholding the findings of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the same, tenant has filed the present revision petition in this Court. Revision petition was admitted and dispossession of the tenant was stayed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 4. Learned counsel for the tenant petitioner submitted before me that tenant could not have made tender on 20.10.1984 and that 20.10.1984 could not be treated as first date of hearing. It has been submitted that tender made on 23.10.1984 was a valid tender. 5. A perusal of the trial Court record would show that on 5.10.1984 learned Rent Controller had ordered issuance of notice in the ejectment petition to the tenant for 8.1.1984. File would further show that the Rent Controller had not taken up the file on 18.10.1984, but instead he took up the file on 20.10.1984 as he was on leave from 17.10.1984 to 19.10.1984. After noticing that he had taken up the file on 20.10.1984 because he was on leave upto 19.10.1984, learned Rent Controller adjourned the case for 23.10.1984 for further orders. On 23.10.1984, learned Rent Controller assessed the cost and thereupon tenant tendered arrears of rent, interest and cost. 6. After noticing that he had taken up the file on 20.10.1984 because he was on leave upto 19.10.1984, learned Rent Controller adjourned the case for 23.10.1984 for further orders. On 23.10.1984, learned Rent Controller assessed the cost and thereupon tenant tendered arrears of rent, interest and cost. 6. From a perusal of the above, in my opinion, it would be clear that 20.10.1984 could never be taken as first date of hearing nor tenant was required to tender arrears of rent on 20.10.1984. As referred to above, notice of the petition was issued to the tenant for 18.10.1984. Admittedly, Rent Controller had not held the Court on 18.10.1984 as he was stated to be on leave. Rent Controller of his own took up the file on 20.10.1984 and adjourned the case for 23.10.1984 for further orders. On 23.10,1984, Rent Controller assessed the cost and thereupon tenant tendered the arrears of rent, interest and cost. Taking all these facts into consideration, in my opinion, tenant was not expected to tender arrears of rent on 20.10.1984 as 20.10.1984 could not be taken as date fixed in this case by any stretch of imagination. Tenant was not expected to keep rent etc. ready with him and to tender the same as and when case was taken up by the Rent Controller. This is especially so when tenant was served for 18.10.1984 and Rent Controller had not held the court on 18.10.1984. 7. In view of the above, in my opinion, courts below had erred in law in holding that the tender of rent made by the tenant on 23.10.1984 was not valid. On the other hand, in my opinion, tenant had validly tendered arrears of rent on 23.10.1984 and no fault could be found with the same. There is nothing on the record to show that the tender made by the tenant on 23.10.1984, in any way was short. Under these circumstances, it could be said that tenant having tendered the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing, he was not liable to be evicted from the demised premises in the present petition on the ground of non-payment of rent. 8. For the reasons recorded above, present revision petition is allowed. Orders passed by the Courts below are set aside and the ejectment petition filed by the landlord is dismissed.