Bhagat Panju Ram and others vs Ram Lal

P.C. Pandit, J.—Certain premises, situate in the town of Rohtak were given on lease by its owner Bhagat Panju Ram to Ram Lal on a monthly rent of Rs. 110/-. On 1st of August 1961, Ram Lal paid to the landlord Rs. 660/- on account of rent for six months for the period 5th July, 1961 to 5th January, 1962. On 16th of January, 1963, Bhagat Panju Ram filed an application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter called the Act) against Ram Lal for his ejectment on the ground of non payment of the arrears of rent from 6th of July, 1961 to 10th January, 1963. It was the case of Ram Lal that out of the period in dispute he had already made payment, on 1st of August 1961, for six months from 5th July, 1961 to 5th January, 1962, but fearing that he might be ejected, he, on the first date of hearing of this ejectment petition i.e. 28th of January, 1963, paid Rs. 2,205/- which covered the rent for the entire period from 6th July, 1961 to 16th January, 1963. After the said payment, the ejectment petition was dismissed. On 21st of March, 1964 Ram Lal brought a suit against Bhagat Panju Ram for the recovery of Rs. 720/-, Rs. 660/- on account of the rent from 5th July, 1961 to 5th January, 1962 which had been recovered twice over by the defendant, and Rs. 60/- which had been paid by him to the defendant on account of other expenses on 1st August, 1961.

The suit was contested by the defendant on a number of pleas, but in this revision petition, we are only concerned with one of them, namely, that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Judge decided the issue of limitation in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit. According to him, the suit could have been filed within six months from the date of the payment of the excess amount which was made on 28th January, 1963 u/s 8 of the Act. The suit having been instituted on 21st March, 1964 was thus clearly barred by time. Reliance was placed by the learned Judge on a decision of Falshaw, G.J. in Dhani Ram v. Pt. Ghasita Ram, in which it was laid down that where a tenant sought to recover rent illegally paid either by deduction from such rent or by separate action, he must do so within six months from the date of payment.

In appeal the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Rohtak. reversed the decision of the trial Court on the question of limitation 3rd decreed the suit for Rs. 660/- in favour of Ram Lal. No decree for Rs 60/- was passed, inasmuch this amount had not been paid by Ram Lal as arrears of rent. His finding was that section 8 of the Act applied when a sum which had been paid was by reason of the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act irrecoverable. Such sums were, according to the learned Judge, given in sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The present suit was not one for the recovery of a sum of that kind. The suit was for the recovery of money paid on account of double payment of rent. Dhani Ram''s case, according to the learned Judge, was distinguishable on facts. There, the rent of the premises was Rs. 13/12/ per mensem. The landlord had, however, realised at the rate of Rs 16/12/ per month. The rent of Rs. 3/- every month was thus irrecoverable under the provisions of the Act.'' Therefore, according to the learned Judge, the suit for the recovery of the over paid rent was to be filed within six months from the date of its payment, He further observed that the period of limitation for a suit of the present nature, however, was given in Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Since the suit was filed within three years of the date of payment i.e. 1st August, 1961, it was clearly within limitation.

Against this decision Bhagat Panju Ram has come to this Court u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the revision petition in this Court, Bhagat Panju Ram died and his legal representatives had been brought on the record in his place.

The only contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners was that the learned Senior Subordinate Judge had erred in law in holding that the suit was within limitation. According to the Learned Counsel, section 8 applied to the facts of the instant case and because of the decision of Falshaw, C.J. in Dhani Ram''s case, the suit should have been held to be barred by time.

7 Relevant part of section 8 of the Act reads -

(1) Where any sum has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been paid which sum is by reason of the provisions of this Act irrecoverable, such sum shall, at any time within a period of six months after the date of the payment, or in the case of a payment made before the commencement of this Act, within six months after the commencement thereof, be recoverable by the tenant by whom it was paid, or his legal representative from the landlord who received the payment or his legal representative, and may without prejudice to any other method of recovery be deducted by such tenant from any rent payable within such six months by him to such landlord.

(2) * * *

A plain reading of this provision will show that it deals with the recovery of those sums by the tenant from the landlord which by reason of the provisions of the Act were irrecoverable from him. Those are mentioned in the preceding two sections 6 and 7, section 6 lays down that the landlord cannot claim anything in excess of the fair rent from the tenant. Section 7 says that no landlord shall, in consideration of the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy of any building or rented land require the payment of any fine, premium or any other like sum in addition to the rent. In other words, if the landlord has recovered from the tenant anything in contravention of the provisions of sections 6 and 7, those sums can be said to be irrecoverable by the landlord by reason of the provisions of this Act. If such sums are required to be recovered by the tenant from the landlord, then the provisions of section 8 would be attracted. In the instant case, however, admittedly the landlord had received double payment of the rent for the same period. He filed an ejectment application and by making a written assertion that he had not been paid any rent for the period 5th July l961 to 5th January 1962, got the same from the tenant on the first date of hearing by coercion as if, because otherwise the tenant might have been thrown out of the premises. Recovery of such an amount, in my view, does not fall within the provisions of section 8 of the Act. As a matter of fact, the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act have nothing to do with the recovery of such an amount from the landlord, because this amount was illegally recovered by him from the tenant by making wrong representation. Dham Ram''s case, relied on by the trial court, is distinguishable on facts. In that authority, it appears from the report that the fair rent of the premises in suit bad been fixed at Rs. 13/12/- per mensem. The landlords, however, recovered it at the rate of Rs. 16/12/- per mensem Since the landlords bad recovered rent in excess of the fair rent, it was, therefore, that the learned Chief Justice applied the provisions of section 8 of the Act to that case. The Senior Subordinate Judge was thus right in holding that section 8 of the Act had no application to the present case. His finding, however, that the suit will be governed by Article 62 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, in my view, is not correct. This Article applies to suits for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money reactive by the former for the letter''s use. The defendant in the instant case never received any money for the plaintiff''s use. As a matter of fact, the defendant, according to the plaintiff, had illegally and be coercion got the money from the plaintiff. It was then suggested that Article 96 would be applicable. But, in my opinion, that Article has also no application to this case, because it governs suits which are filed for relief on the ground of mistake. It is not the plaintiff''s case that he had paid the amount in dispute to the defendant on account of some mistake. As I have already said, he had to pay this amount to the defendant under coercion, because the latter had filed a suit for his ejectment before the Rent Controller and if he had not deposited this amount on the first day of the hearing, he might have been evicted from the premises. I am of the view that in the circumstances of this case, the Article applicable will be the residuary one, namely, Article 120 which relates to suits for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the First Schedule. In this Article the limitation is six years from the time when the right to sue accrued to the plaintiff and that would be the 28th of January, when the double payment was made to the defendant. The suit having been brought on 21st March, 1964 was therefore, well within limitation.

In view of what I have said above, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs in this Court.