Lakhi Ram vs Lakhi Ram

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This petition for revision is directed against the decision of the Appellate Authority reversing on appeal the decision of the Rent Controller, ordering eviction of the tenant. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised a very limited contention. It is that do doubt the payment made on the first date of hearing covers the entire amount due as arrears of rent plus interest and costs, yet it is not a valid tender because on the 27th February, 1968, a statement was made by the tenant that he was not liable for interest and Costs. Reliance in particular is placed on the first part of the proviso to Section 13(2) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner I don''t agree that the tenant has made default. It was open to the tenant to pay the entire amount due from him and also dispute his liability for the same The matter would be different if the amount tendered was short or its payment to the landlord Had been made conditioned. In the present case whatever was due to the laddlord on the first date of hearing was tendered. It does not matter if the amount tendered was the exact amount due or it was in excess of it. The tender would be a valid tender, it no conditions as to payment of the amount to the landlord are attached to it. In the present case no such conditons were attached. The fact that according to the statement of the tenant no interest or costs were due, does not in any manner invalidate the tender. To say the least the contention raised is hypertechnical, and is, therefore, rejected.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.