Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1109 (PNJ)

Moti Ram Mittal v. Harnam Singh Bali

2002-10-23

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2002
Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. This case has been called out three times since morning. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. The Court is left with no option, but to proceed with the matter and decide the same on merits. 2. Moti Ram landlord had filed a petition for eviction against Sh. Harnam Singh Bali, the tenant in H.No. 96, located in Sector 20-A, Chandigarh. The ground of eviction was that he was in arrears of rent with effect from 1.4.1980 to 31.5.1981. The agreed rate of rent between the parties was Rs. 135/- per month. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties;- 1. Whether the rate of rent is Rs. 135/- per month exclusive of electricity and water charges, payable in advance as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the respondent has made a valid tender? OPR. 3. Relief. 3. Parties were given opportunity to lead evidence. Keeping in view the documentary and oral evidence on record, the Rent Controller answered Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the landlord and accepted the rent petition. The tenant was ordered to be evicted and was granted one months time to vacate the premises in question. 4. However, the judgment of the learned Rent Controller dated 3.11.1982 was appealed by the tenant, which was accepted by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 8.4.1983. The eviction petition was dismissed. Aggrieved therefrom, the landlord has filed the present revision petition. 5. The learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion on the basis of statement of RW-1 Sh. Harnam Singh Bali that Ex.R-1 was the treasury challan by virtue of which a sum of Rs. 135/- was deposited in the State Bank of India on 15.9.1980 and further that another sum of Rs. 540/- was deposited on 20.8.1980. These facts were duty supported by the statement of RW-2. A notice was also sent with regard to the said deposit which was Ex.R/2. Keeping in view this evidence, the Appellate Authority answered the question to the effect that the tenant had made valid tender. 540/- was deposited on 20.8.1980. These facts were duty supported by the statement of RW-2. A notice was also sent with regard to the said deposit which was Ex.R/2. Keeping in view this evidence, the Appellate Authority answered the question to the effect that the tenant had made valid tender. The conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Authority reads as under;- "So, in these circumstances I am of the considered view that when the deposits of the rent have duly been made for the period claimed in the eviction petition, it amounts to a valid tender and a tenant cannot be thrown out of the house merely because there was no strict compliance of the provisions under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act whether notice was despatched to the appellant immediately after the deposits or that the particulars of the deposits were not mentioned in the notice though at the same time there was no ambiguity. An interpretation taken up by the Learned Rent Controller in this behalf to my way of thinking is erroneous and could not be sustained. The appellant had deposited the aforesaid amounts before the first date of hearing had approached and so the respondent was not entitled to the interest and costs on that amount. Hence, I reverse the findings on issue No. 2. It is also to be mentioned that there is nothing on record to suggest that the rent was payable in advance nor the question is relevant when the rent already stands deposited. Therefore, the finding on issue No. 1 is also reversed." 6. The above findings recorded by the Appellate Authority are in consonance with a very recent judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Dutt Jadiya v. Ganga Devi, A.I.R. 2002 S.C.W. 930 where an opportunity is to be provided to a tenant to deposit the rent, the legislative intent, as interpreted by the Honble apex Court substantially complied with by impugned judgment. The view taken by the Appellate Authority, thus, cannot be faulted with on any ground. 7. For the reasons aforestated, the petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.