Nobat Ram vs Mangal Singh

Prem Chand Pandit, J.—The facts of this revision petition are not in dispute. Mangal Singh had made an application u/s 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, hereinafter called the Act, against Naubat Ram, a vegitable seller, for his eviction from the shop in dispute, which is situate in Bassi, District Patiaia A number of grounds had been taken for ejectment, but in the present petition, we are only concerned with one of them, namely, that the tenant was in arrears of rent.

On the first date of hearing, the order passed by the Rent Controller was in these terms:

The respondent has tendered Rs. 175/- as arrears of rent, Rs. 12/- as interest and Rs. 20/- as costs assessed by this Court (Rs. 207/- in all), which amount has not been accepted by the petitioner. Hence be deposited in the Court. To come up on 2 8.69 for w/s.

The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction application, holding that the ground for non-payment of rent by the tenant has not been established by the landlord On appeal, however, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that as the tenant had not deposited the rent in Court as ordered by the Rent Controller, there was no valid tender of the arrears of rent by the tenant within the meaning of this word occurring in the proviso to section 13 (2) (i) of the Act. He, consequently, accepted the application of the landlord and ordered the ejectment of the tenant, who has come here in revision.

The only point that has been argued before me is whether the tenant in the instant case, bad complied with the proviso to Section 13 (2)(i) of the Act and made a valid tender of the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing.

Section 13 of the Act gives the various grounds on the basis of which the ejectment of a tenant can be ordered. One of these grounds is that the tenant has not paid the rent due from him in respect of the rented premises within 15 days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last date of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. This ground is given in section 13 (2) (i) of the Act. If however, in a particular case, a tenant has not in fact paid or tendered the rent as mentioned above, he is given the protection of not being evicted on this ground if on the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service, he complied with the proviso to section 13 (2) (i) of the Act. The only question for consideration is whether in the instant case, the tenant has been able to do so or not. The said proviso reads:

Provided 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 at six per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application assessed by the Controller, the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the time aforesaid.

A bare reading of this provision will show that the tenant has either to pay the arrears of rent and interest at 6 per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application assessed by the Rent Controller to the landlord on the first hearing of the eviction application after due service or tender the said amount on that date. If he does so, then he would be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the prescribed time.

In the present case, undoubtedly, the arrears of rent together with interest and cost was not paid to the landlord on the first hearing of the ejectment application. The question remains whether he had tendered the said amount on that date. Indisputably, ''tender'' implies the physical act of offering the money or thing to be tendered. The required amount should be actually produced before the Rent Controller for payment to the landlord. A mere offer to pay the said amount would not be a valid tender. The amount should in fact be in the possession of the tenant and he must place it before the Rent Controller so that the landlord can immediately take it. Regarding the meaning of ''tender'', reference be made to the decision of Tek Chand J. in Kali Charan v. Ravi Datt (1957) 59 P. L. R. 204, where it was held--

Further that the word "tender" imports not merely the readiness and the ability to pay or perform, at the time and place mentioned in the contract, but also, the actual production of the thing to be paid or delivered over. A mere offer to pay does not constitute a valid tender; the law requires that the tenderer has the money present and ready, and produce and actually offer physical act of offering the money or thing to be tendered. The law insists upon an actual, present, physical offer; it is not satisfied by a mere spoken offer to pay, which although indicative of present possession of the money and intention to produce it is unaccompanied by any visible manifestation of intention to make the offer good.

No decision taking a different view was cited before me.

On the first date of hearing, the order passed by the Rent Controller has been quoted above. According to it, the Rent Controller has himself found as a fact that the tenant had tendered the arrears of rent together with interest and cost assessed by the Controller on the first date of hearing of the eviction application. That being so, the tenant had complied with the proviso to section 13(2) (i) of the Act and therefore, he was not liable to eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent by him.

It is true that the amount tendered by the tenant had not been accepted by the landlord. It is also correct that the Rent Controller, thereupon, directed the tenant to deposit the said amount in Court. Again, it is the common case of the parties that the amount was not actually deposited in Court. Could the tenant be then evicted on account of his non-deposit of that amount in Court ? In my opinion, the answer his to be in the negative. The proviso nowhere lays down that if the tenant makes a valid tender of the arrears of rent together with interest and cost and the said amount is not accepted by the landlord, then the same has to be deposited in Court, if the landlord does not choose to take the amount in question, he himself has to be blamed for that. It is not the requirement of this proviso that in that contingency, the Amount has to be deposited in Court by the tenant. Any other interpretation of this proviso would be reading more than what it contains. As I have already said, all that the tenant was required on the first date of hearing was to pay the arrears of rent together with interest and cost to the landlord or tender the said amount before the Rent Controller for payment to him. Nothing more has to be done by the tenant. In this case, the tenant choose the later course, which he was entitled to do under the law. If the landlord did not take the amount tendered, he and not the tenant should suffer for it. The Appellate Authority was wrongly of the view that even if the tenant tendered the amount then he was bound under the law to deposit the same in Court as directed by the Rent Controller, if the said amount had not been accepted by the landlord. This is not what is needed under the proviso to section 13(2) (i) of the Act.

I would, therefore, accept this petition, set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and dismiss the ejectment application. In the circumstances of this case, however, I will leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout.