Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1318 (PNJ)

Ram Kishan v. Naresh Kumar Anchal

2002-11-27

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2002
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The petitioners, who are landlords, have filed the present revision petition against the order passed by both the Courts below, vide which their application for ejectment of the respondent-tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent was dismissed. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent is tenant of the shop in question at the rate of Rs. 250/- per month. It has been alleged by them that the respondent was in arrears of rent for the period from 15.1.1985 to 14.7.1985. In spite of the repeated requests, when the respondent did not pay the aforesaid arrears of rent, they filed the ejectment application on the ground of non-payment of rent for the aforesaid period on 20.8.1985. 3. Pursuant to the notice issued to the respondent-tenant, he appeared before the Rent Controller and admitted the fact that he is tenant of the shop in question at the monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. However, he denied that he was in arrears of rent. He submitted that in fact the rent for the period from 15.1.985 to 14.7.1985 was deposited by him in the Court of Rent Controller by filing an application under Section 6A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and rent for the period from 15.7.1985 to 14.8.1985 was tendered by him in the Court on 6.2.1986 on first date of hearing. Thus, he stated that he was not in arrears of rent and the application filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed. 4. The petitioners controverted the stand taken by the respondent on two grounds, which have also been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. Firstly that neither there was any occasion or justification with the respondent to deposit the rent by filing the application under Section 6A of the Act nor the amount of rent deposited before the Rent Controller in the aforesaid application amounts to a valid tender of rent. Firstly that neither there was any occasion or justification with the respondent to deposit the rent by filing the application under Section 6A of the Act nor the amount of rent deposited before the Rent Controller in the aforesaid application amounts to a valid tender of rent. Secondly even if the payment of aforesaid rent before the Rent Controller under the said application is considered to be a valid tender, then the interest on the rent for the said period from 15.1.1985 to 14.7.1985 was not paid and that interest still remains with the respondent, therefore, the rent tendered by the respondent is short qua interest and he is liable to be evicted on this ground. 5. Both the Courts below have rejected both the aforesaid contentions raised by the petitioners and I am of the view that the same were rightly rejected. 6. So far as the factual position in the case is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the same. Rent for the period from 15.7.1985 to 14.8.1985 was tendered in the Court on 6.2.1986 with interest and costs. The dispute is only regarding the payment of rent for the period from 15.1,1985 to 14.7.1985, which was deposited by the respondent in the Court of Rent Controller on 18.7.1985 by filing an application under Section 6A of the Act, copy of which is Ex.R1. In that it has been stated that he offered the rent to the landlords for each and every month, but they refused to accept the same, therefore, he made a request for depositing the amount of rent in the Court. Admittedly, no interest was paid on the rent for the aforesaid period. Now, the question is whether the de- posit of rent by filing the aforesaid application before the Rent Controller is a valid tender towards arrears of rent and if it is held to be a valid tender whether it was of the complete rent or not or whether the respondent was also required to tender the interest on the aforesaid amount? To answer this question, it is necessary to examine the provisions of Section 6A of the Act, which are reproduced below: "A. Deposit of rent" (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, if a landlord refused to receive, or grant a receipt for any rent payable in respect of the building or rented land when tendered to him by a tenant, the tenant may apply to the Controller for leave to deposit, the rent in his office, and the Controller shall receive the deposit, if, after examining the applicant, he is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for the application and if the applicant pays the free, if any, chargeable for the issue of the notice hereinafter provided. (2) when a deposit has been received under Sub-section (1), it shall be deemed to be a payment made by the tenant to his landlord in respect of the rent due. (3) On receiving the deposit, the Controller shall given notice of the receipt thereof to the landlord and shall pay the amount thereof to him." 7. A perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly reveals that if a landlord refused to receive or grant a receipt for any rent payable in respect of the building or rented land when tendered to him by a tenant, the tenant may apply to the Controller for leave to deposit the said rent before the Court and if the Rent Controller is satisfied, on being examining the tenant, that there is a sufficient ground for the tenant to make application the Rent Controller shall allow him to deposit the amount of rent in the Court. Sub-section (2) of this Section provides that any deposit made under Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a payment made by the tenant to the landlord in respect of the rent due. The language of the aforesaid Section is very clear. If the Rent Controller, after examination of the tenant, is satisfied that the landlord is not accepting the rent, he can allow the tenant to deposit the rent in the Court. If under such order, the tenant deposits the rent due to the landlord in the Court, the deposit will be deemed to be the valid payment made by the tenant to the landlord. If under such order, the tenant deposits the rent due to the landlord in the Court, the deposit will be deemed to be the valid payment made by the tenant to the landlord. In the present case, the application under Section 6A of the Act, filed by the respondent tenant, was allowed by the Rent Controller and the rent was deposited by the tenant in the Court. After depositing the amount, the Rent Controller issued notice of the said application to the landlords-petitioners, in response to which they appeared through their counsel and in their presence, the order dated 5.10.1985 (Ex.R2), permitting them to withdraw the amount from the Court, was passed. It is pertinent to mention here that when the petitioners-landlords appeared before the Rent Controller in response to the aforesaid notice, they did not raise any objection regrading deposit of rent in the Court. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and the clear mandate of Section 6A of the Act, it was rightly held by the Courts below that the deposit of rent for the period from 15.1.1985 to 14.7.1985 by the Tenant before the Rent Controller under Section 6A of the Act is deemed to be valid tender of rent and on the date when the present application for ejectment was filed on the ground of non-payment of rent, the said amount cannot be said to be due towards him. 9. Now the second question is whether the respondent was liable to tender interest on the delayed payment of rent for the period from 15.1.1985 to 14.7.1985, which he deposited in the Court of Rent Controller by filing application under Section 6A of the Act. In my opinion, the respondent is not required to tender any interest on the amount of rent paid for the aforesaid period. When the present ejectment application was filed by the petitioners on 20.8.1985, the respondent-tenant had already deposited the rent for the period from 15.1.1985 to 14.7.1985 in the Court on Rent Controller by filing the aforesaid application on 18.7.1985. Therefore, he as not in arrears of rent on 20.8.1985. When the present ejectment application was filed by the petitioners on 20.8.1985, the respondent-tenant had already deposited the rent for the period from 15.1.1985 to 14.7.1985 in the Court on Rent Controller by filing the aforesaid application on 18.7.1985. Therefore, he as not in arrears of rent on 20.8.1985. Even otherwise, the tenant is not required to pay interest on the delayed payment of rent for the period from 15.1.1985 to 14.7.1985, as contemplated in the proviso to Clause (i) of Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act, if he had already deposited the arrears of rent in the Court by filing application under Section 6A of the Act. The liability of the tenant to pay interest arises only if he has not paid the rent to the landlord. Once Sub-section (2) of Section 6A of the Act clearly provides that any rent deposited under Sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be payment made to the landlord, then the question of paying interest on the said amount does not arise. Under Section 6A of the Act, rent can only be deposited by the tenant if the landlord refuses to accept rent from him and if the Rent Controller is satisfied about this fact on the basis of statement made by the tenant before the Court. Once the statement of tenant was accepted and the Rent Controller was satisfied that the landlord was not receiving the rent and allowing the tenant to deposit the rent, then this question cannot be re-opened in the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act and any rent deposited before the Rent Controller, under Sub-section (1) of Section 6A of the Act, will be deemed to be a valid payment to the landlord. If that is so, then the question of payment of interest on the delayed payment of aforesaid rent does not arise. Thus, the Courts below have rightly rejected the contention of the petitioners-landlords while holding that the tenant is not liable to pay interest and the tender made by him in the present case was not short. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.