SHEO NARAIN versus SHER SINGH

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 836 · Decided: 21-10-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
• B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
836 
SHJilO NARAIN ' 
v. 
SHER SINGH 
September 21, 1979 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. S. KAILASAM AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] 
East Pu111ab T.Jrban Re111 Restriction Act, 1949, Provisa ta Secaon 13(2) (i)' 
-Scope of-Whether tlie deposit by a tenant of the entire arrears of rent or the 
Fair Rent fixed by the Rent Controller before the first date of hearing of the 
ejectment application would amount to deposit on the .'first date of hearing so as 
to attract the' benefit under Section 13(2)(i) of the Act. 
The proviso to clause (1) of sub~section (2) of section 131 of the East Punjab 
Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, states that ''if the tenant on the first hearing 
of the application for ejectment after due service pays or tenders the arrears of 
rent and interest @ 6 % per annum or such arrears together with the co3t of 
application assessed by the Controller, the tenant shall beo deemed to have duly 
paid or tendered the rent within the timei showed in clause (i) of sub-section (2) 
of section 13 of the Act, 1949". In such circumstances, an order for eviction 
against the tenant cannot be passed. 
The appellant v.•as a tenant under the respondent-landlord Sher Singh. 
On 
21-3-67, Sher Singh filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab 
Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 for ejectment of the appellant-tenant from the 
tenanted shop situate in Gurgaon Cantonment, on the ground of arrears of rent 
for the period from 9-11-65 to 8-3-67 at the agreed rate @ Rs. 15/- p,m. The 
notice of the application for ejectment with the first date of hearing as 11-5-67 
was served on the appellant-tenant on 22-4-67. 
On 29-4-1967 the 
appellant-
tenant made1 an application before the very same Rent Controller praying for 
payment of arrears of rent i.e. Rs. 178.48 for the above period computed @ 
Rs. 10.62 p.m., being the fair rent fixed by that Court on 20-4-67 in an ear1ier 
application for :fixation of fair rent. The said amount was actually deposited 
in the court of the Rent Controller on 4-5-67. On 11-5-67 the appellant tenant 
tendered in the court to the Jandlord a further sum of Rs. 25 /· being the costs 
and Rs. 2/- being the interest. 
This was not accepted on the ground that the 
tender was not a valid one within the meaning of section 13(2)(i) of the Act. 
This objection was accepted by the Rent Controller and ·an ejectment order was 
passed. 
On first appeal the District Judge 
reversed the said 
order. 
In the 
Revision before the High Court, the High Court remanded the matter to the first 
Appellate Court for fresh orders in view of this Court's 1uling in Vidya Prachar 
Trust v. Basant Ram [1970] I S.C.R. 66. The Firnt Appellate Court affirmed 
the ejectment order. 
In the further revision to the High Court, the learned 
single Judge referred it to the Division Bench which in turn referred rn to a third 
Judge. The third Judge agreed with the single Judge that the payment of fair 
rent fixed on 4-5-67 was not a valid tender within the meaning of section 13(2) (i) 
t)f the Act. 
The single Judge, therefore, dismissed the revision petition and 
confirmed the orders .of ejectment of the courts below. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court. 
.-' 
.. 
• 
'
·
·'
SHEO NARAYAN V. SHER SINGH 
837 
HELD: J. Proviso to section 13(2)(i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Res-
trictions Act, 1949 requires three essential conditions: (1) that there must be an 
application for ejectment before the Court, (2) that even after due service the 
tenant <lees not pay or tender the arrears of rent and interest at 6 per cent per 
annum together with oost9 ass'essed by the Controller, (3) that if the payment as 
required ·by the aforesaid two conditions is made then the tenant shall be deemed 
to have paid rent vt1ithin the time required by law. The last part of sec!ion 13 
enjoins that v;·here the conditions of the proviso are, not fulfilled the Controller 
shall make an order directing the tenant· to put the landlord in possession and 
where he is satisfied that the rent has been paid, the application of the landlord 
must be rejected. [841 A-C] 
2. There is no magical formula or any prescribed manner in \\1hich rent can , 
be deposited by the tenant with the landlord. 
The rent can be deposited by 
placing the money in the hands of the landlord which could amount to actual 
tender. The second mcxle of payment is to deposit t."'ie amount in the court where 
a case is pending in such a manner so as to mak

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