LexSHRI VIDYA PRACHAR TRUST versus PANDIT BASANT RAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SHRI VIDY A PRACHAR TRUST
v.
PANDIT BASANT RAM
March 21, 1969
A
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J. AND G. K. MITTER, J.)
B
Eas/ Punjab Urban Ren/ Res1ric1ion Act,
1949--S. 13(2)(1)-Evic-
tion for flon-payfnenr of ren1-Deposit1 in court under s. 31 Relief of In-
debtedness Act, 1934-Whetht>r equivalent to tender of renl to landlord.
The appellant landlord made an application under s. 13 of the East
Punja!> Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for the respondent's
eviction
from cerlain premises on lhe ground that the rent tor the premi!eS from C
October 1959 to June 1961 had not !>eon paid.
On the first day of bear-
ing the mpondent appeared and tendered pan of the rent. He claimed
that he had made two deposits in the court of the Senior Sub-Judge under
s. 31 of the East Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, I 934 and that this
was a valid tender of the balance rent to the landlord.
1be Rent Con-
troller decided that the respondent
was not in default and the appellate
authority as well as the High Court took the same view.
On appeal to this Court,
D
HELD : The deposit under s. 3 I of the Relief of Indebtedness Act did
not save !he tenant from the consequences of the default as comtemplated
by s. 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Act. (70 FJ
Section 31 is intended to operate between debtors and creditors where
diflicully in making the payment, either wholly or partly, may arise nnd
the dcblor wishes to save himself from interest
which is running. The E
Act is nor intended to opcrdtc between landlords and tenants; nor is the
Court of the Senior Sub-Judge a clearing house for rent.
Although the
general words "any person who owes money" may appear to cover the
case of a tenant, looking at the Act as a whole, the phrase must be read
to cover cases of debtors and creditors Oetwecn whom there is an agree·
ment for payment of interest because the deposit is intended to stop in·
terest from running.
No interest is agreed to be paid by tenants, at any
rate, nor ordinarily, and therefore, the section cannot be said to cover a F
case between a landlord and a tenant. [69 F·HJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 499 of
1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
March 18, 1964 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Revision No. G
750 of 1962.
Bishan Narain and Naunir Lal, for the appellant.
N. N. Keswani, for the respondent.
Janardan Sharma and S. K. Nandy, for the intervener.
The Judgmem of the Court was delivered by
H
RidayatuDah, C.J.
This is a landlord's appeal against an
order of the High Court of Punjab, March 18, 1964, confirming
PRACHAR TRUST v. BASANT RAM (Hidayatullah, C.J.)
67
A the dismissal of his petition for the eviction of the respondent from
certain premises taken on rent.
The appellant had made the
application under s. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restric-
tion Act, 1949 on the allegation that rent for the premises from
October 1, 1959 to June 30, 1961 had not been paid. The rent
of the premises was Rs. 32/8/- and the water connection charges
B
were Rs. 2/8/-. On the first date of hearing the tenant appeared
and tendered Rs. 292/8/- as rent from October 1, 1960 to June
30, 1961. He also paid Rs. 7/- as interest and Rs. 25/- as costs.
These amounts were accepted by the landlord without prejudice
to his claim that the rent for the earlier period had not been paid.
c
It appears that the tenant had made two deposits in the Court
of the Senior Sub-Judge, Ludhiana under s. 31 of the East Punjab-
Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 on December 23, 1959 and
July 18, 1960, the amount being 210/- on each occasion.
The
tenant claimed that this was a valid tender of rent to the landlord.
The Rent Controller, by his order, decided that the tenant was
D
not in default and the Appellate Authority and the High Court
also took the same view. It was held by the Appellate Authority,
as well as by the High Court, that the deposit under s. 31 of the
Relief of Indebtedness Act was a valid tender under s. 13 of the
Urban Rent Restriction Act.
The Division Bench in the High
Court followed an earlier decision of the same Court reported in
E
Mam Chand v. Chhotu Ram('). The correctness of that decision
as well as the decision under appeal are challenged before us.
Before the hearing commenced the respondent took
objec-
tion to the grant of the special leave stating that the appellant was
guilty of making "certain inaccurate untrue and misleading stExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.