Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1067 (PNJ)

Daulat Ram v. Kuldeep Singh Yadav

2004-09-17

M.M.KUMAR

body2004
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This is tenants petition filed under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for brevity, the Act) challenging the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the petitioner was not entitled to deposit rent under Section 6-A of the Act because the tenant-petitioner has already deposited the rent in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohindergarh. The Appellate Authority has accepted the fact that the tenancy created by the tenant-petitioner has been terminated by issuance of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and in the suit filed by the landlord-respondent, the tenant-petitioner has deposited the rent. The aforementioned factual position has been admitted by Daulat Ram, tenant-petitioner, who has appeared before the Rent Controller as PW-2. On the aforementioned basis, the Appellate Authority in its Order dated 06.05.2004 has concluded that the tenant-petitioner cannot assert that he was entitled to deposit the rent under Section 6-A of the Act. The observations of the Appellate Authority in para 11 and 12 are relevant and the same read as under:- "11. From the aforesaid statement of the respondent, it becomes very clear that he had not even paid the rent of March to the landlord before marking this application. The regular suit of ejectment has been filed after filing of this application and in that suit, the tenant had paid the rent to Kuldeep for the months of March, April and May, 1999. 12. In any regular suit for ejectment, two main questions have to be decided. The first is regarding the fact that the demised premises is exempted from the operation of the Act and the second is valid termination of tenancy by giving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is stated before me at the bar that the regular suit for ejectment has been decided against the applicant-appellant and his appeal is pending decision at present. If the appellant is ejected from the demised premises on account of termination of tenancy by way of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, no use would be there of the appellant getting any favourable order in this appeal. If the appellant is ejected from the demised premises on account of termination of tenancy by way of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, no use would be there of the appellant getting any favourable order in this appeal. However, if the said suit is ultimately dismissed, the appellant would be deemed to be a tenant in possession of the demised premises and the payment of amount at the rate of Rs. 800/- per month for the months of April and May, 1999 made in that suit would be deemed to be payment of rent and no adverse order could be made against the appellant on account of non-payment of rent in this application. The amount of Rs. 800/- for a month may be called as rent or compensation for use and occupation of the building. It has to be paid only once. It cannot be claimed that the tenant was entitled to deposit it all over again after depositing the same for the relevant period in the regular ejectment suit and that any additional benefit would have accrued to him on account of that." 2. Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has argued that there is an admission by the landlord-respondent accepting the tenant-petitioner as his tenant and therefore, the tenant is entitled to deposit rent under Section 6-A of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the mere fact of depositing the rent in the civil Court would not constitute any valid ground for rejecting the prayer made by the tenant-petitioner. 3. Having heard the learned counsel at some length, I am of the considered view that the orders passed by both the Courts below do not suffer from any legal infirmity because the provisions of Section 6-A come into operation only when a landlord refused to receive rent or grant any receipt for any rent payable in respect of the tenanted premises. Section 6-A of the Act reads as under:- "Section 6-A. Scope and applicability of Section 6-A Arrears of rent.- Landlord filing application for ejectment of tenant - even during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings tenant can deposit rent with Rent. Controller before the first date of hearing or within a fortnight of first date of hearing - the procedure Under Section 6-A is summary one and it is to be decided in absence of the landlord." 4. Controller before the first date of hearing or within a fortnight of first date of hearing - the procedure Under Section 6-A is summary one and it is to be decided in absence of the landlord." 4. A perusal of the above provision shows that a tenant could apply to the Rent Controller for grant of leave to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller which the Controller must receive if he has specified that the landlord has refused to accept the rent which was payable in respect of the demised premises when it was tendered to him by the tenant. If such a deposit is made then by operation of law, it is deemed to be payment made to the landlord. Obviously, once the deposit is made then the provisions of Section 13(2)(i) of the Act for ejectment of the tenant on account of non-payment of rent would not be available to the landlord. 5. In the present case, the rent has been deposited by the tenant-petitioner to the Court of Civil Judge where the landlord-respondent has claimed that the provisions of Rent Act were not applicable as the tenanted premises is less than 10 years old and the aforementioned fact concerning payment of rent has been candidly admitted by the tenant-petitioner when he appeared as PW-2. Therefore, provisions of Section 6-A of the Act would not come in operation in such a case. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any legal infirmity in the orders passed by both the Courts below and the instant petition is dismissed with costs.