MANGAT RAI & ANR. versus KIDAR NATH & ORS.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 476 · Decided: 21-08-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
476 
MANGAT RAI & ANR. 
v. 
KIDAR NATH & ORS. 
August 21, 1980 
(Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.J 
Tender of arrears oj rent and future rent by the tenant by way of 
deposit under Section 31 of the Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 in 
the Court-Eviction suit filed by the landlord under the provisions of East 
Punjab Urban Rem Re sir 'ct ions Act, 1949-Whether the deposit of rent is 
a valid tendc·r of rent for the purposes of Section 13(2) of the Rent Act-
Punjab Courts Act, 1938 and circulars dated 14-4-1947, effect oj-Future Rent 
whether could b.e deposited in the cow·t. 
The appellants were the tenants of the respondents-landlord. 
The 
suit 
filed by the respondents for eviction of the appellants under Section 13 of 
the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 on the g:o~nd of default 
in payment of rent was d1ecreed 
in spite of the fact that the appellants 
deposited all the rents 
before 
the 
date of filing of the suit, 
the future 
rent in· advance before the first date of hearing and also the interest and cost 
of the suit amounting to Rs. 23 on the first. date of hearing. These deposits 
were made under Section 31 of the Punjab Reliief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 
and under Section 13 of the Rent Act before the Rent Controller-cum-Senior 
Sub-Judge respectively. 
The suit was decreed on the ground that the said 
deposit was not a valid 
tender 
and the appellants could flot claim 
any 
protection under the proviso to Section 13(2) of the Rent Act but the Apµellate 
Court set aside the judgment 
of the 
Trial Court on the ground of the 
validity of the notice. The High Court in revision following the decision of 
.this Court in Yasodai Ammal's case set aside 'the appellate order and decreed 
the suit. 
Both the Appellate Court and the High Court never went into the 
question of deposit of rent so a~ to protect the tenant from eviction. Hence, 
the appeal by obtaining the special leave from this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD (1) The main object of the Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 
is to give relief to debtors and protect them from paying excessive rates of 
interest. 
From the plain and unambiguous language of Section 31, it cannot 
be spelt out that the Act applies only to a particular type of debtors and 
creditors. 
Section 31 has been couched in the widest possible terms and the 
legislature has advised!~{ not used the word debtor in Section 31 so 
as to 
confine the 
prov1s1ons 
of the 
section 
only 
to the 'debtor' defined in 
. the said Act and to no other but the legislature intended to embrace within 
its fold all persons owing money including tenants who are in arrears. 
Thus, 
under Section 31 of the Indebtedness Act any person who owes money is 
entitled to deposit in court the money owed either in full or in part in the 
name of his creditor. It is clear, thetefore, that 
Section 31 
would apply 
even to a tenant who owes money to his landlord by way of rent due ;1nd 
he can also enjoy the facility provided by Section 31 of the Indebtedness Act. 
[481 C, 482 E-G] 
+ 
MANGAT RAI V. KIDARNATH 
477 
(2) The combined 'effect of the provisions of Section 31 of the Indebted· 
ness Act and the Notification No. 1562-Cr.-47 /9224, 
dated 14th April, 1947 
published in the Punjab Gazette Extraordinary and the Notification made 
under the Punjab Courts 
Act, 
1918 by which a Senior Sub-Judge was to 
function as a Controller under the Rent Act is that Section 31 is constituted 
a statutory agency or machinery for receiving all debts and paying the same 
to the creditors. 
This is the dominant purpose and the avowed object of 
Section 31 of the Indebtedness Act. It thus follows as a logical consequence 
that any deposit made by a tenant under Section 31 would have to be treated 
as a deposit under the Rent Act to the credit of the landlord and which will 
be available to him for payment whenever he likes to withdraw. f 482 H, 483 H· 
484 B} 
Ku/dip Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr. [1956) S.C.R. 125, followed. 
A 
B 
Mam Chand v. Chhotu Ram & Ors. I.LR. 1964 Punjab 626 and Khushi 
C 
Ram v. Shanti Rani & Ors. 1964 Punjab Law Reports 755, approved. 
Vidya Prachar Trust v. Pandit Basant Ram [1970] 1 S.C.R. 65, overruled. 
(3) To give a narrow meaning to the words "person who owes money" 
used in Section 31 of the Indebtedness Act would be to unduly restrict the 
scope of Section 31 which is contrary 
to 
the intention o

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