SHAM LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. versus ATME NAND JAIN SABHA (REGD.) DAL BAZAR

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 509 · Decided: 10-12-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SHAM LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
ATME NANO JAIN SABHA (REGO.) DAL BAZAR 
" 
DECEMBER 10, 1986 
[M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, section 13(2}-Meaning 
of the word "First day of hearing of the app/ication"-Whether means the date 
of first appearance by the defendant-tenant or the date on which the Rent 
Controller assesses the arrears of rent due etc. 
A 
B 
The appellant is a tenant in respect of a room forming part of the property 
C 
Unit No. B-IX-148 (New), Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana, which has been rented on 
a monthly rental of Rs. 23 by the landlady Smt. Guran Devi on the basis of 
rent deed dated 7th July, 1967 for a period of three months. After the expiry of 
the term of the tenancy, he continued in possession of the suit premises as a 
statutory tenant under Smt. Guran Devi. Smt. Guran Devi, however, gifted 
away this property in favour of the Respondent on February 13, 1968 and D 
from that date the appellant became a tenant under the respondent. The 
ejectment was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent from 
13.2.1968 till the date of filing of the application for ejectment in July, 1969 
under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The 
summons of this application was served on the tenant-appellant and the 
returnable date was fixed for 26.6.1969. On that date, the appellant appeared 
E 
before the Rent Controller, Ludhiana with his counsel and prayed for 
adjournment for filing written statement. The case was adjourned to 2.7.1969. 
On that date the written statement was filed and the tenant tendered a .sum of 
Rs. 336 on account of arrears ofrent from 13.2.1968 to 12.6.1969 together with 
Rs. 15 as interest and Rs. 25 as costs as fixed hy the Rent Controller. The 
landlord accepted the amount under protest. One of the issues framed in the F 
. 
said case was whether the tender was a valid tender within the meaning of 
v"'' proviso to section 13(2) ofEast Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The 
.~ 
Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition being of the view that since on 
the first day of appearance the tenant did not tender payment he was in 
jefault. On appeal, the appellate authority reversed the finding holding that G 
the next date fixed by the Rent Controller for filing written statement and on 
which date the payment was tendered and received by the landlord under 
protest was the "fll'St day of hearing" contemplated by proviso to section 
13(2)(i) of the Rent Act. In Revision, the High Court restored the order of the 
Rent Controller, Hence the appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
H 
509 
510 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987) 1 S.C.R. 
HELD: The day mentioned in the summons i.~. 26.6.1969, in the instant 
...,. 
A 
case, cannot be treated to be day of first heruing of the ejectment application 
but it is the day for appearance of the defendcnt as on that day the Court does 
not take up the hearing or apply its mind to the hearing of the application. It is 
only after written statement is filed, the issues are framed and hearing 
commences. (513A] 
B 
The object of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act as stated in 
:111 
the Preamble to the Act is to restrict the in orease of rent of certain premises 
situated within the limits of urban areas and· eviction of tenants therefrom. 
From the objects of this Act it is abundantly clear that this Act was enacted 
~
with the object of affording protection to the tenants against arbitrar-y increase 
of rent of certain premises within the limits of urban areas as well as from 
c 
eviction of the tenants from the rented premises. In this context, it is 
imperative that the word "the first hearing of the application" have to be ... -
interpreted in a manner which promote the object of this beneficial 
legislation. Viewed from this aspect it must be held that the words "first 
hearing of the application'" as used-in provi;so (i) to sub-section 2 of section 13 
of the said Act does not mean the day fixed •for return of the summons or the re-
D 
turnable day but the day when the Court applies its mind to the case. [SISE-G ! 
Ved ~rakash v. Vishwa Mohan, [1981) 3 SCC 667, followed. 
Mangat Rai v. Ved Prakash, 1969 Vol. I Rent Control Reporter p. 96; 
Shah Amba/a/ Chhota/a/ & Ors., v. Shah Baba/ Das Dayabhai & Ors., AIR 
~-
1964 (Gujarat) p. 9 and Khanderao Malkarjun Dhotre v. Anandrao 
E Laxmanrao Mashalkar, AIR 1959 (Bombay) p. 471, approved. 
4
CIVIL APPE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.