CHHOTE LAL versus SHRI KEWAL KRISHAN MEHTA

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 855 · Decided: 25-02-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VISHISHTHA BHARGAVA

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
Il 
CHHOTE LAL 
v. 
SHRI KEWAL KRISHAN MEHTA 
February 25, 1971 
[!. D. DUA AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.) 
855 
East Ptmjc.b Urban Rem Restriction Act III of 1949-Application 
under s. 13 for ejectJnent of tenant-Electricit,v charges lvhetilcr part of 
rent for the pzupose of detennining arrears. 
c 
The appellant was the tenant of premises owned by respondent. 
He 
""a~ ordered to be ejected from the premises on the ground that he was 
in arrears of rent for more than three months and did not tender them 
even at the first hearing hy the Rent Controller of the application for 
tjectment presented by the landlord under s. 13 of' the East Punjab Urban 
Rent Restriction Act III of 1949. 
The District Judge dismissed the 
tenam·s appeal. ln revision the High Court of Punjab and Haryana pro· 
D 
E 
F 
G 
ceeded on the basis that on the date of application which was made on 
22nd Sept~mber, 1964, the total arrears due from the tenant including 
interest and electricity charges amounted to Rs. 497.33 P. 
The High 
Court was of the view that electricity charges would form part of the 
rent. The amount in deposit accordin¥ to the tenant, came to R•. 469. 
At this amount did not cover the entire arrears of rent due tho tenant 
wua held llnblc to ejectment by the High 
Court. The present appcul 
w1" flied by spcciul leave. 
HELD : In the 11pplic11tion flied by the Jundlord It wu no~here !lated 
thnt the arrenrs of electl'icitv churgcs formed part of the rent. 
Conie· 
quently no issue was frnmcd by the trial court whether the electricity 
charges formed part of the tent. 
On the face of it, there was no justi· 
lication for accepting this new point when it was not pleaded at all in the 
original application. [857 DJ 
Read correctly even the rent note made it clear that the electricity 
charges could not possibly form part of the rent. 
Further the amount 
,Jue for consumption of electricity each month could only be known at 
the end of that month, while. under the ag'reement the rent had to be 
paid in advance. 
The charges were variable and would depend on the 
amount of electricity consumed. If the electric charges were held to be 
part of the rent it would lead to the inference that even the rent of the 
building was variable and was different each month. In view of these 
circumstances it was clear that the District Judge and the High Court 
vJent wrong in proceeding on the basis that the electric c..harge formed 
pllfl of the rent and that non-payment of electric charges due amounted 
to non-payment of arrears of rent. [857 E-858 DJ 
Hari Ram Jaggi v. Des Raj Sethi (1966) PL.R. 431, distinguished. 
The High Court had accepted that the amount in deposit was enough.· 
to cover arrears of :r:ent, in case the electric charges were not treated· as 
H 
part of the rent. On this finding, the decision of the High Court uphold· 
ing the order of eviction could not be justified. 
Further, according to 
the District Judge there was no deposit or tender even of the amount 
of Rs. 469 as claimed by the tenant. In ,the revision before the High, 
856 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[l 971] 3 S.C.R. 
Court thil!. finding of the District Judge was assailed by the tenant. The 
A 
High Court did not examine the propriety or correctness of this finding. 
The case, therefore, must be remanded to the High Court for determina· 
tion of the question whether the tenant had made a proper deposit or 
tender of sum of Rs. 469. In case he had done so he was not in arrears 
of rent and was not liable to ejectment. [858E-H] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1947 of-
B 
1967. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment ainid order dated 
November 20, 1967 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 
Civil Revision No. 1058 of 1966. 
R. V. Pillai, M. L. Aggarwal and N. K. Aggµrwal, for the 
C 
appellant. 
S. P. Sinha and M. V. Goswami, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
Bhargava, J.-This appeal by special leave is by a tenant who 
· has been ordered to be ejected on the ground that he was in arrears 
of rent for more than three months and did not tender them even 
:at the first hearing by the .Rent Controller o.f the application for 
ejectment presented by the 111indlord under section 13 of the East 
Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act III of 1~49. The High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana in its judgment stated that, admittedly, the 
'rent of the premises was fixed at Rs. 20 per month and was to be 
paid in advnnce each month. In add

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