Madan Lal (Deceased) through L.Rs. vs Nand Lal

V.S. Aggarwal, J.—The present revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, dated 27.2.1978 and of the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, dated 15.1.1982. The learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction which was upheld by the learned Appellate Authority.

Respondent M/s Nand Lal and sons had filed eviction application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short "the Act"). The eviction of the petitioner Was claimed from the suit premises on the ground of non payment of rent including house tax. It was alleged that the petitioner was a tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/- and has not paid the same from 1.7.1972.

The petition for eviction had been contested. The plea raised was that M/s Gainda Mal Madan Lal was the tenant and petitioner Madan Lal was its Karta. On the first date of hearing, Madan Lal tendered the rent on behalf of M/s Gainda Mal Madan Lal. It was accepted under protest.

The learned Rent Controller framed the issues and held that it was the petitioner who was the tenant in the property in question. The rent was not tendered by the petitioner but on behalf of M/s Gainda Mal Madan Lal and, therefore, it was not a valid tender. An order of eviction was passed. The findings were affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the same, present revision petition had been filed.

On 1.2.1999 this Court had directed that notice be issued to the parties. Despite the order, none appeared on behalf of the respondent though the case was listed afresh. Appearance has been put in on behalf of the petitioner only. In these circumstances, this Court did not have the advantage of hearing the respondent''s counsel.

The sole argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that though it has been found as of fact that the petitioner was the tenant in the suit premises, still the rent so tendered must be taken to be a valid tender. According to him, it was the petitioner who tendered the rent on behalf of M/s Gainda Mal Madan Lal of which petitioner describes himself to be the Karta. In any case, rent had been paid and accepted and, therefore, it cannot be termed that the ground of eviction was available.

In support of this contention, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Pushpa Devi and others Vs. Milkhi Ram (Dead) by his L.Rs., . This was the decision rendered under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. At the outset, it deserves mention that the learned Rent Controller as was as the learned Appellate Authority had relied upon two decisions of this Court in the case of Ram Gopal v. Om Parkash (1963) 65 P.L.R. 1112 and Punjab Rajasthan Goods Carriers v. Onkar Mal, (1976) 78 P.L.R. 364. Both these decisions were over ruled by the Supreme Court in Smt. Pushpa Devi''s case (supra). The Supreme Court held that the expression "tenant" occurring in proviso to Sub-section (2)(i) of Section 13 of the Act should be construed liberally. It should include the person claiming to be tenant for purpose of making deposit of arrears of rent on first day of hearing. The position herein is much better. In the present case, it was Madan Lai who tendered the rent though as Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family. It is held that he, in fact, is the tenant in the property. In any case, it was the tender of rent by Madan Lal and even if it was on behalf of Hindu Undivided Family, the net result would be that the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Pushpa Devi''s case (supra) will come to the rescue of the petitioner. It cannot be termed that on the first day of hearing there was default in the tender of rent. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained.

For these reasons, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned judgment of the learned Appellate Authority and the order of the learned Rent Controller are set aside. Instead, the eviction petition is dismissed.