RAMA KANT AND ORS. versus SONA DEVI

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 14 · Decided: 21-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAMA KANT AND ORS. 
v.. 
SONA DEVI 
FEBRUARY 21, 2002 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND 
DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
C 
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973: 
S.13(2), first proviso-Rent tendered by son of tenant-Va/id tender of 
rent-Non-residential premises-Eviction petition against tenants for non-
payment of rent-Son of one of the tenants tendered the rent as provided in 
D firsi proviso to s. 13(2)-Landlady accepting rent without prejudice to her 
rights-Rent Controller dismissed eviction petition holding that there was a 
valid tender of rent-Appellate Authority ordered eviction of tenants holding 
that tender of rent could not be treated as a valid tender-High Court dismissing 
).-
revision of tenants-Held, the son of the tenant while tendering the rent never 
claimed that he was tendering it as a sub-tenant-In his statement he did say 
E that he tendered the rent on behalf of his fath~r-Tender of rent by him was 
as a member of family of the tenant-When rent is tendered by any member 
of tenant's family to landlord without any inconsistent claim, it cannot but be 
for and on behalf of the tenant-It therefore, cannot be said that tender of rent 
by tenant's son was not a valid tender. 
F 
Pushpa Devi and Ors. v. Milkhi Ram (dead) by his Lrs., (1990] 2 SCC 134 
G 
H 
and Maghi Lal (dead) through Lrs. v. Kundan Lal and Ors., (1994] Supp. 2 SCC 
444, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6724 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3.99 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in C.R. No. 2864 of 1998. 
R.P. Bansal, Sanjay Agarwal, S.K. Verma and P.R. Kumar for the 
Appellant. 
Pradeep Gupta for K.K. Gupta for the Respondent. 
14 
RAMA KANT v. SONA DEVI 
15 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A 
The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the first 
appellant, a tenant, can avail protection of the first proviso to Section 13(2) 
of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 on payment 
of the arrears ofrent and other amounts specified therein by the third appellant, 
~~. 
B 
This appeal is from the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana 
at Chandigarh dismissing the appellants' Civil Revision No. 2864of1998 on 
March 18, 1999. Appellant Nos. l and 2 are brothers and are tenants of a 
shop bearing No. 680/17 situated in Prem Market, New Subzi Mandi Road. 
Kaitahal (for short. 'the premises'). The respondent is the landlady of the C 
premises. On July 1, 1990, a rental agreement was executed between the 
respondent and appellant Nos. l and 2 agreeing to let out the premises on a 
monthly rent of Rs. 750 plus house tax. Appellant No. 3 who is the son of · 
appellant No. l, has been residing with him and helping him in his business. 
The respondent filed eviction petition on the ground of non-payment of rent D 
of the premises from October l, 1995 till the date of filing of the case on 
December 6, 1995 under Section 13(2) of the Haryana Urban (Control of 
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act') 
The appellants contested the case. Appellant No. 3 paid the arrears of 
rent for the said period together with other specified sums. The respondent E 
accepted the same without prejudice to her rights. The appellants contended 
that it was a valid tender on behalf of the first appellant. 
The learned Rent Controller accepted the contention of the appellants 
that there was a valid tender of rent within the ambit of the said provision 
and dismissed the eviction petition on March 31, 1997. However, on appeal F 
by the respondent, the Appellate Authority took the view that the tender of 
rent by appellant No. 3, could not be treated as a valid tender as being for 
and on behalf of the first Appellate ordered eviction of the appellants and 
thus allowed the appeal on May 16, 1998. The appellants unsuccessfully 
assailed the order of the Appellate Authority before the High Court in Civil G 
Revision No. 2864 of 1998. On dismissal of their revision by order dated 
March 18, 1999, the appellants have come up in appeal by special leave of 
this Court. 
Mr. R.P. Bansal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, 
contends that the rent tendered by appellant No. 3 was accepted by the H 
16 
SUPREME COURT REP.ORTS 
[2002) 2 S.C.R. 
A respondent without prejudice which only means that acceptance of rent would 
not prejudice the other proceedings pending between the same parties
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.