BRIJ BHUSHAN versus KEWAL KUMAR

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 1016 · Decided: 05-08-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
BRIJ BHUSHAN 
v. 
KEWAL KUMAR 
AUGUST 5, 1998 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, B.N KIRPAL AND V.N KHARE, JJ.) 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Haryana Urban [Control of Rent and Eviction] Act, 1973: 
Ss. 6 A and 13(2)(i) proviso-Application by tenant to deposit rent in 
Court alleging that landlord refused to accept the same-On orders of 
Rent Controller tenant deposited rent- Thereafter application uls 13 by 
landlord for ejectment of tenant on ground that rent had become due with 
cost and interest-Tenant resisting the claim of landlord-Landlord filed 
D no rejoinder nor did he challenge the order uls. 6-A- Application uls 13 
for ejectment allowed-Held, Rent Controller imported the requirement of 
the proviso to s. 13(2)(i) into s. 6-A which was wholly erroneous-Ground 
for holding that deposit, 6-A was not valid because interest and cost had 
not been paid is erroneous-There is no such requirement regarding payment 
E of interest and cost uls 6-A-Tenant had deposited rent uls 6-A and also 
cost and interest as contemplated by s. 13(2)(i)-Application for eviction 
ought to have been rejected by Rent Controller-Appel/ate authority and 
High Court committed no error in setting aside the order of Rent Controller 
and dismissing ejectment application filed by landlord. 
p 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal no. 2755 of 
G 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.4.97 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C.R. No. 481of1997. 
M.L. Verma and K.B. Rohtagi for the Appellant. 
O.P Sharma, R.C Gubrele, K.R. Gupta and Ashok Sudan for the 
Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
H 
The only question involved in this appeal by special leave is whether 
1016 
r 
BRJJ BHUSHAN v. KEW AL KUMAR 
1017 
the amount deposited by the tenant/respondent under Section 6A was valid A 
tender? The learned Rent Controller held the deposit as not a valid tender 
while the appellate authority and the revisional court took a contrary view. 
The factual matrix of the case is that the tenant/respondent filed an 
application under Section 6A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & 
eviction ) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the learned B 
Rent Controller, Ambala on 19 .5 .88 alleging that the landlord was not receiving 
rent and was also not issuing receipt for the same, and, therefore, the tenant 
had no other option available to him except to deposit the arrears of rent in 
that court. On obtaining orders from the learned Rent Controller the tenant 
deposited the rent from 12.2.87 to 11.5.88 amounting to Rs. 7500 in respect C 
of the demised premises in the court. Notice was directed to be issued to the 
respondent for withdrawal of the amount by the learned Rent controller. While 
the matter rested thus, the landlord filed an application under Section 13 of 
the Act seeking ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises on the 
ground that the tenant had not paid the rent to the landlord from 12.2.87 to 
11.8.88 at the rate of Rs. 500 p.m. and a sum of Rs. 9000 had become due and D 
payable to the landlord along with cost and interest. The tenant resisted the 
application for ejectment and in the written statement asserted that he had 
already deposited the arrears of rent from 12.2.87 to 11.5.88 amountomg in to 
Rs. 7500 under Section 6A of the Act under orders of the court dated 14/15.6. 
1988 and that the necessity to do so had arisen because the landlord had 
refused to receive the rent and give receipt for the same. It was maintained E 
in the written statement that the landlord did not receive the rent in spited 
of best efforts made by the tenant and that attitude of the landlord compelled 
him to move the court of the Rent Controller under Section 6A of the Act 
seeking permission to deposit the rent in the court. No rejoinder was filed 
to this written Statement. The lanplord also did not challenge the order of F 
;. 
the Rent Controller made under Section 6A at any stage. Thus, the assertion 
of the tenant both in the application under Section 6A and in the written 
statement to the effect that the landlord despite the best efforts made by the 
tenant had refused to receive the rent and give receipt for the same remained 
unrebuted. The learned Rent Controller inspite of this position allowed the 
application for ejectment on 25.7.94 and while deciding issue No.2 which G 
reads-
"Whether the respondent has deposited the rent from 12.2.1987 
to 11.5.188 under Section 6A of the Ren

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.