Om Parkash vs Narain Parshad

J.V. Gupta, J.—This order will dispose of Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 794 and 799 of 1979, as the question involved is common in both the revision petitions.

Narain Parshad, landlord, sought the ejectment of his tenant Om Parkash, from the premises in dispute, on the ground of non-payment of the arrears of rent. In the ejectment application giving rise to Civil Revision Petition No. 794 of 1979, which was filed on May 9, 1973, the arrears of rent were claimed with effect from August 1, 1970 to May 9, 1973, at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month whereas in the ejectment application giving rise to Civil Revision Petition No. 799 of 1979, the arrears of rent were claimed for the earlier period as well as from August 1, 1970 to August 18, 1975 when the eviction application was filed. It is the cammon case of the parties that Bidri Narain was the original owner of the premises, in dispute. He died on December 13,1970, leaving behind his widows Ganpati Devi and Durga Devi. Narain Parshad claimed himself to be the adopted son of Badri Narayan, the original landlord. He filed a civil suit for a deciaration to the effect that being the adopted son of Badri Narain, he was the owner of the house, in dispute. It was filed on April 3, 1973, and was decreed the next day, i e , on April 4, 1973, vide copy, Exhibit A-4. Immediately thereafter, he gave the notice, Exhibit A-2, dated April 6, 1973. to the tenant to the affect that be was in arrears of rent from August, 1970. Subsequently he filed the ejectmeat application on May 9, 1973, claiming the arrears of rent from August 1, 1970 to May 9, 1973. The learned Rent Controller found that the tenant had proved that he had been paying rent to Badri Narain during his life time and after his death, because of his good relations, to his widow and his daughter. Thus, no rent was due prior to April 4, 1973, to the landlord Narain Parshad Consequently, the eviction petition was dismissed. In appeal, the Appellate Authority did come to the conclusion that the landlord was only entitled to the arrears of rent from April 4, 1973 and not for the period prior thereto. However, according to it, since the Rent Controller had assessed Rs. 25/- as the costs which were not paid by the tenant, he was liable to be ejected. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. As regards the other eviction application, the Rent Controller dismissed the same, but the Appellate Authority disposed of the same with the following observations vide impugned order dated August 12, 1977, under revision:

Against that order I have decided that case in appeal on 15-7-1977 and order of ejectment has been passed on the ground that the tender is not valid. Because no other point has been argued in this appeal than that of the other appeal, therefore, I do not deem it proper to deal with the other issues and I reject this appeal also.

Dissatisfied with both the orders, the tenant has filed these two revision petitions in this Court.

The only controversy between the parties in these two revision petitions is whether the tenant was in arrears of rent from August 1, 1970 to April 4, 1973 or not It has been concurrently found by both the authorities below that Narain Parshad was entitled to the rent only from April 4, 1973, when the decree, Exhibit A-4, was passed in his favour. As regards the payment of the rent for the earlier period, the Rent Controller categorically found that the same was paid by the tenant to the widow and the daughter of Narain Parshad Under the circumstances, the Rent Controller rightly dismissed the ejectment application Simply because the Rent Controller had assessed the arrears of rent, costs and interest, on the first date of hearing, it did not mean that the tenant was liable to pay the costs, even if it was found subsequently that no arrears of rent were due from him. Thus, the learned Appellate Authority was apparently in error in passing the eviction order on the ground that though no rent was due, yet as the costs assessed were not paid by the tenant, he was liable to be ejected from the premises.

It is the common ease of the parties that the rent from April 4, 1973 to October 4, 1975, alongwith house tax, interest and costs, was paid by the tenant, in the second ejectment application. It was contended on behalf of the landlord that the said rent was not paid within 15 days of the first date of hearing and, therefore, any payment made after the said period was not valid However, no such plea was taken before either of the authorities below, nor any finding has been given as to under what circumstancs the amount was accepted om October 15, 1975, when the first date of hearing was September 29, 1975. The delay, if any, in paying the amount not within 15 days is of one day only and if any objection would have been taken thereto, the same may have been explained by the tenant.

For the reasons recorded above, both the revision petitions succeed and are allowed with no order as to costs. The eviction order passed against the tenant is set aside and both the ejectment applications filed on behalf of the landlord are dismissed.